Sitting of 15 April 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Business Tax
    Mr. John M. Taylor: What estimate he has made of the change in the level of tax to be paid by business in 2001–02 as a result of the March 1999 Budget. [79443]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): All companies that pay tax will benefit from the cuts in corporation tax that were announced in this year's Budget and in the previous Budget.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Chancellor dispute the view of the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, who has confirmed that business taxes will increase by £20 billion over the next four years as a result of the Budgets?
    Mr. Milburn: The CBI has welcomed the cuts in corporation tax that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in this year's Budget. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a consequence of that and previous Budgets, we have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the history of the United Kingdom and the lowest rate of any major industrialised country in Europe—indeed, it is the lowest rate of any major industrialised country in the world. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, generally, the climate for business and industry after the Government's Budgets is far better? Does he agree that, overall, the future for our aerospace and steel industries is better? I remind him that, in the early 1980s, the Conservative Administration managed to get rid of more than 2.5 million manufacturing jobs. Has he the stomach to face an Opposition with such a record?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. What business most dreads is a return to the years of Tory boom and bust, and a return to the conditions of the late 1980s and early 1990s, when 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost, inflation was in double figures and interest rates peaked at 15 per cent.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Whom should we believe about the effect of this year's Budget on the level
    354
    of business taxation: the Chancellor, who said that the Budget offered tax cuts to business, or the British Chambers of Commerce, which says that taxes on business are up by £3.2 billion as a result of this year's Budget alone?
    Mr. Milburn: As he took part in the Budget debate, the shadow Chancellor should realise that we have not only cut corporation tax in the Budget—[Interruption.] We have reduced it to 30p, 20p and there is a new lop starting rate. In addition—it has been widely welcomed by not just the CBI, but other business organisations—we have introduced new research and development tax credits to help businesses to take forward new products and new services. We have also extended capital allowances to aid manufacturing and service-based industries. The Budget has been widely welcomed by business because it is good for business.
    Mr. Maude: Does the Chief Secretary not realise how insulting it is to pretend that business taxes are coming down when every business man knows that they are going up? Corporation tax rates may be being reduced, but the amount of corporation tax that businesses are paying is going up. It is what they are paying that they mind about. That is going up, in breach of Labour's pledges.
    Has the Chief Secretary not read the report from the Treasury Select Committee, which says:
    "the tax burden will increase during the coming financial year"?
    Has he asked the Chairman of the Select Committee what he thinks about that? Can he not summon the ordinary decency to admit that taxes are rising under Labour by stealth and that Labour's clear pre-election pledge that there would be no increase in taxes at all was a cynical deception?
    Mr. Milburn: I am glad that the shadow Chancellor has finally conceded that we have cut the rate of corporation tax. That is welcome. Perhaps he would also concede that there is a fundamental difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party: we keep our tax promises, Conservative Members break theirs.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent study by Manchester business school, which shows that small businesses are 5.7 per cent. better off as a result of the Budget? Has he seen the reports in today's papers that 83 per cent. of City fund managers expect the economy to grow this year? Will he therefore ignore the snivellings of the Conservative party and continue to develop the small business service that was announced in the Budget, so that it provides a coherent framework and value-added services?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. He is an expert on small business. He understands its needs. I am pleased that he recognises that this, too, was a Budget that recognised the needs of small businesses and will help them to prosper.

    Real Interest Rates
    Mr. Tim Boswell: When he last met business representatives to discuss the level of real interest rates. [79444]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I meet regularly with business representatives to discuss issues, including interest rates. Compared to an average of more than 4 per cent. for the past 20 years, real short-term interest rates are below 3 per cent, at 2.8 per cent. Real long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 40 years. Mortgage rates are at their lowest level for 33 years.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the Chancellor for that reply and acknowledge that the recent cut in interest rates has been helpful to business, but will he concede that there is still a substantial gap between our real interest rates and those of our competitors, particularly after the recent reduction in the eurozone? What consolation can he offer to businesses, which, despite the protestations of the Chief Secretary, are facing increases in taxation inherited from previous Budgets, additional regulation and a continued heavy burden of interest rates?
    Mr. Brown: The people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will be pleased to know that, while real interest rates peaked at 8.9 per cent. under the previous Government, they are now 2.8 per cent. under Labour. People can see the difference between the downturn in the early 1990s—when 1 million manufacturing jobs were lost, output in manufacturing fell by 7 per cent. and manufacturing investment fell by 28 per cent.—and the current situation with low inflation, interest rates coming down and a growing economy. The hon. Gentleman might want to tell his friends what the vice-chairman of the Conservative party said about the Budget:
    "We welcome the help for small businesses. I think that is good. Overall, not a bad business Budget."
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two surveys this morning that show growing optimism in small business, large business and the City are good news for Britain because we have a period of certainty and certain prosperity? Will he tell the Opposition to stop whingeing and talk Britain up, not down?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I welcome the fact that he is chairing the all-party committee on Europe, which has no Conservative party representation. The British Chambers of Commerce survey shows that confidence in turnover and profitability is rising. We have managed to cut interest rates, keep inflation low, maintain stability and invest £40 billion in health and education—something that the Conservatives would not do. We have also introduced a minimum wage and the working families tax credit, which the Conservatives opposed, as well as increasing child benefit and introducing a £100 winter allowance for pensioners, something that we know that the Conservatives would never do.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that the Liberal Democrats welcome the recent reductions in interest rates and hope that they can be sustained? However, does he acknowledge that there is a problem for savers and that some financial institutions have not passed on the full benefit of the reductions in interest rates to mortgage holders? In that context, is it
    356
    not absurd to refuse to extend the benefit of the 10p income tax rate to income from savings, which would cost only £85 million?
    Mr. Brown: As usual, the Liberal party wants to make another public spending promise that it has no means of meeting from any of its revenue proposals. The hon. Gentleman is proposing another loss of revenue to the Exchequer, but he never says how he would fund his ideas. We introduced a new savings bond for old-age pensioners in the Budget. The individual savings account has been introduced and people are taking it up. The best thing that we can do for savers is to keep inflation low. Our policy is to keep inflation at or near the target of 2.5 per cent. I hope that the Liberals' finance spokesman welcomes our actions on all those issues. We are combining stability in the economy with help for the pensioners whom he says that he wants to help.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will interest rates be affected by the debt in the contingency fund brought about by the NATO operation? Is the Chancellor sure that the costs can be contained in the contingency fund?
    Mr. Brown: It is precisely because of our prudence over the past two years in reducing the deficit from £28 billion that we are able to meet contingencies as they arise.

    EU Budget Abatement
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement regarding the British abatement from the EU. [79446]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Berlin European Council concluded that the UK abatement will remain. Our objective was secured: we said that the Government would maintain the abatement, and we have done so.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, although he has put a very positive gloss on a deal that will cost Britain nearly £200 million a year. Did the Government agree in Berlin that the rebate mechanism would also apply to other member states and to new member states? If so, who will foot the bill?
    Mr. Brown: The conclusions of the Berlin summit, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not question, say that the UK abatement remains. The Berlin summit's conclusions also say that, in all the other matters on which we were pressing for advantage for the United Kingdom—whether on regional policy, on the highlands and islands or on Ireland—we got what we wanted. As for any other speculation on possible decisions of the Berlin summit, the decisions are as announced; there is nothing in them about what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Given the irredeemably split nature of the Conservative party on Europe, is my right hon. Friend aware of any independent commentator, anywhere in Britain or even in Europe, who believes that, had the Conservative party been in government, it would have brought back from Berlin a better deal than we have done? If he cannot find such independent

    357
    verification, is it not time that, in their own interests, Conservative Members stopped scratching that open wound?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that the Conservative party will have a proper period of reflection on what went wrong under the previous Government. It is absolutely clear that our policy of constructive engagement has achieved far greater results—on the budget, on regional policy, in advantages for Ireland and the highlands and island, as well as on the abatement—than the Conservative party's carping and narrow isolationism ever could have done. My hon. Friend asked whether I have some advice for Conservative Members on what they might do. I simply refer them to the manifesto issued by the Conservative party in Scotland for the Scottish parliamentary elections. It starts by saying:
    "On May 1st 1997 the people of Scotland told us what they thought—we got it wrong."
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Will the Chancellor give an absolute assurance that, during the negotiations on the future of the United Kingdom abatement, no horse-trading or compromise was done on the withholding tax? Is he aware of the consternation in the City of London, particularly among the 10,000 people whose jobs are at risk, at the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister does not even know what the withholding tax is? Will the Chancellor stop dithering and just say now that the Government will veto the measure?
    Mr. Brown: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that there was no horse-trading on the matter that would have been in any way damaging to Britain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Well, there was no horse-trading on the matter, if he wants that assurance. I can also say that—in preference to the Conservative negotiating tactics that would have left Britain completely isolated in Europe on that and on every other issue—we shall get the best deal for Britain on the matter, as we did at Berlin.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his negotiations on the abatement. However, is not the reality that the existence of the abatement—which was negotiated by a former Prime Minister—over many years, has undermined our negotiating position within the European Community, particularly in CAP reform?
    Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept that. The abatement is wholly justified, and we have defended it. Conservative Members said that we would give away the abatement—we did not. The conclusions of the Berlin summit accept that the abatement continues, and Conservative Members should be congratulating us.

    Millennium Compliance
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the Government's contingency plans in respect of a failure of systems at the new millennium in major financial institutions. [79447]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Treasury has a wide range of contacts with both the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England on the year 2000 issue. The FSA regards the issue as a major supervisory priority and has made it clear that firms that fail to implement appropriate measures face regulatory intervention. The memorandum of understanding between the Treasury, the Bank of England and the FSA sets out the role of each institution in the field of financial stability, including where there are exceptional circumstances.
    Dr. Cable: Why did the Minister not mention in her reply the recent report of the FSA's director of supervision—which suggested that a significant number of high-impact financial institutions are so negligent that they have not even started to make preparations for millennium compliance and may well be required to close their doors in the new year, with incalculable consequence for individuals and small businesses? Will she explain more precisely what the Government, in addition to the FSA, plan to do to prevent that disaster from occurring?
    Mrs. Roche: The Government are working closely with the FSA, and daily meetings are taking place. It is well acknowledged that UK financial institutions are perhaps the leading institutions in terms of year 2000 compliance. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the statement about those firms. Those figures were for the end of 1998. The authority has challenged those firms that appear to be less ready than others either to show that the assessment was out of date or rapidly to produce a plan for remedial action. Updated figures will be produced next week.

    Self-employed (National Insurance)
    Mr. Richard Page: What estimate he has made of the increase in national insurance to be paid by the self-employed in 2000–01 as a result of the March 1999 Budget. [79449]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): For 2000–01, it is estimated that the self-employed will pay £420 million less in contributions as a result of the March 1999 Budget.
    Mr. Page: That figure is not an accurate reflection of the increases. Will the Minister give the House some calculation of what the effect may be on unemployment?
    Mrs. Roche: On unemployment, I am a little disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate the Government on the fact that, since the 1997 election, unemployment in his constituency has gone down by over 22 per cent. The changes will mean that self-employed people who pay class 2 contributions will benefit by £4.55 a week. We are the party that supports the self-employed and small businesses.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What is the Minister's justification for raising the national insurance upper earnings limit next year and the year after by almost three times the rate of inflation? Is that not yet another stealth tax rise on middle Britain—a tax rise that the Government hoped that no one would notice? Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government

    359
    will propose no further increases in the upper earnings limit beyond the rate of inflation for the remainder of this Parliament?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman has a bare-faced cheek. The Conservative party raised taxation and broke its promises to the British people 22 times. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Conservative Members are shouting because they do not like the facts—but they are going to hear the facts. Under the Conservatives, a small business went bust every three minutes. That is why middle-income families up and down the country voted with the rest of the British people for this Government at the last election, and why they will vote us in again.

    Environmentally Friendly Road Transport
    Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the impact of the measures in his recent Budget statement to encourage more environmentally friendly road transport. [79452]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): This year's Budget contained the most far-reaching package of environmental tax reforms ever seen in our country. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a number of measures designed to encourage the use of cleaner fuels and vehicles and to discourage unnecessary journeys. Those included a £55 reduction in vehicle excise duty for small cars, a fundamental reform of company car taxation, changes in fuel duties to encourage cleaner fuels and seven new tax relief measures to encourage employers to promote environmentally sensitive commuting. Those measures will help to reduce congestion and emissions of both greenhouse gases and local air pollutants.
    Mr. Burden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I welcome the cut in duty for liquid petroleum gas. Will she go further and encourage the use of more environmentally friendly fuels—for instance, ultra-low sulphur diesel? On vehicle excise duty, I welcome the step along the way in relating that to engine size, but does she agree that engine size is not the best measure of environmental performance? We need to look at much more exact measures, such as carbon dioxide emissions.
    Ms Hewitt: The Budget cut duty on road fuel gases, including liquid petroleum gas, by 29 per cent., and we have widened the differential for ultra-low sulphur diesel. That differential is having such a beneficial effect that we expect that, by the end of the year, virtually all the diesel sold in this country will be the cleaner ultra-low sulphur type.
    As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget, from next autumn we will introduce a new system of vehicle excise duty for new cars, graduated according to their emissions of carbon dioxide. That will give a very clear signal to people who are buying new cars to choose cleaner cars that do less environmental damage.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister trumpets the environmental gains in the Budget, but the measures will drive British hauliers into bankruptcy. British freight will be carried by foreign hauliers. Hauliers
    360
    with trucks on the continent have told me that the foreign lorries are not maintained as well as lorries in this country. The freight will still be carried, the pollution will stay here, and it will be pumped out by less well-maintained, dirty foreign trucks.
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is wrong as well as xenophobic. It was of course the Conservative Government who introduced the road fuel escalator, which he now apparently opposes. It was the Conservative Government who drove 5,000 British hauliers into bankruptcy. In the Budget, we froze the rate of vehicle excise duty for 98 per cent. of lorries for the second year in a row; doubled the VED reduction for cleaner lorries to £1,000; increased the differential on ultra-low sulphur diesel; cut the duty on road fuel gases; made it easier for hauliers to down-plate, as the industry has long requested; and introduced cuts in the rate of corporation tax, from which all businesses, including hauliers, will benefit.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I warmly welcome the imaginative measures in the Budget to promote cycling, including the tax breaks for employers and employees to encourage cycling to work, which will go a substantial way towards helping us to achieve our target of quadrupling cycling by 2010. What is my hon. Friend doing to publicise those measures and to increase the take-up?
    Ms Hewitt: I know that my hon. Friend sets an excellent example by riding his bicycle to work. We have responded to the pleas of various companies and the environmental lobby by introducing seven measures in the Budget to promote environmentally friendly commuting. Those have been warmly welcomed by both business and the environmental lobby, with which we are working closely to ensure that employers and employees know of the measures and take full advantage of them.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Economic Secretary confirm that the further 12 per cent. increase in diesel duty in the Budget has made diesel nearly twice as expensive in Britain as on the continent? Is she aware that it enrages the British haulage industry that the Government dress up that huge revenue-raising measure as an environmental measure? How does it help the environment to drive British haulage firms out of business; raise the cost of all manufactured goods that have to be transported; encourage foreign lorries to come into this country using cheap foreign diesel and taking away British jobs; and to encourage British lorries to travel to the content to fill up with cheaper fuel?
    Ms Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister when the previous Government introduced the road fuel escalator. It was he and his colleagues who described the road fuel escalator as an environmental measure. Less than 1 per cent. of road miles in this country travelled by lorries are travelled by foreign lorries. International competitiveness is simply not the issue.
    In the context of the total tax and cost burdens on business, this country is the favoured environment for road hauliers, as for other businesses. A typical road haulier setting up in the Netherlands would face costs £600,000 higher than those in this country, and, for Belgium, that figure would be £800,000.

    361
    We are helping the road hauliers by freezing VED—[Interruption.] Tory Members clearly prefer to support the disruption caused by extremist lorry drivers instead of supporting us in our policy of discussion with the road hauliers through the new industry forum that we have set up. We took several steps in the Budget to help hauliers—by freezing VED, by widening the differential for cleaner fuels and by doubling the VED cut for cleaner lorries.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Conservative party supports the policy of disruption by lorry drivers, or our policy of discussion—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is not for the Minister to ask the Opposition what their policies are.

    Industrial Energy Tax
    Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement about the implementation of the industrial energy tax. [79453]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Following the recommendations made by Lord Marshall, the Government will introduce a climate change levy on the business use of energy from April 2001. The new levy will make a significant contribution to meeting our targets for reducing greenhouse emissions.
    The climate change levy will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business, since it will be recycled in full through a cut of 0.5 per cent. in the main rate of employers' national insurance contributions. Businesses will also benefit from an additional £50 million for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency directly, and from extra support for renewable sources of energy.
    The Government recognise the need for more special consideration for the position of energy-intensive industries, given their high energy usage and exposure to international competition. We intend to set a significantly lower rate of tax for energy-intensive sectors. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister initiated discussions with the sector concerned at a meeting on 29 March.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and congratulate the Government on the way in which a consensus has been developed in recent months on the need for the climate change levy. However, does she agree that, although large companies are now well aware of the arguments surrounding the levy and the need for it, many thousands of small companies have not been party to the debate surrounding Lord Marshall's report, climate change and the Kyoto protocol? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, in implementing the levy, and also in explaining its purpose, special attention will be given to the needs of small companies?
    Dawn Primarolo: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, because the consultation now taking place on the details of the scheme and the percentage of the levy, and the discussions on how it will operate, are not only targeted at assisting the energy-intensive industries. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, they will also ensure that small and medium companies are aware of their obligations and of the process that will take place.
    Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister has just emphasised the Government's environmental concerns, as the Economic Secretary did a moment ago. Ministers have argued for some time that they can justify huge and stringent increases in fuel tax for vehicles because they will be environmentally helpful. Given that the pollution of the environment by domestic energy is at least as great as that by vehicles, how can she explain the reduction that the Government made in domestic fuel energy tax?
    Dawn Primarolo: The answer is fairness, and to assist pensioners so that people could afford to keep warm. The Government's targets for meeting their Kyoto obligations are clearly laid out, in connection with both the industrial energy tax and the measures taken in the transport sector, in the consultation documents that are to be published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: Are not the energy-intensive industries the very ones that benefited most from the collapse in energy prices in the past 10 years? Oil prices have fallen from $30 a barrel to $10 a barrel, the price of gas has fallen by half, and coal is down to £30 a tonne. I am disappointed to hear that the Government have decided to introduce a lower rate when those industries have benefited the most from low energy price and have the most to contribute to carbon dioxide savings.
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is disappointed, but we need to pay especial attention to the question of competitiveness. The consultation document, which suggests an illustrative rate reduction for intensive energy industries, is designed to ensure that they make a contribution and fulfil their obligations. At the same time, we are mindful of the environment in which their businesses operate.

    Savings
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If he will make a statement on his plans to increase the savings ratio. [79454]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government want to encourage people to save more and that is why we have taken the tough decisions necessary to create a climate of low inflation, economic stability and an end to boom and bust. Those are the conditions that will encourage people to undertake long-term saving and improve their security.
    Mr. Sayeed: The verdict of the professionals in the savings industry is that ISAs are more expensive and more bureaucratic than PEPs, and less generous. ISAs are not attractive to those on modest means, which is why Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury have refused to sell them over the counter in their supermarkets. As the decline in the savings ratio is especially acute among those who are less well off, will the Minister agree to publish and place in the Library a savings ratio disaggregated for each of the income groups and then explain to the House how she will encourage the less well-off to save, because ISAs are clearly failing?
    Ms Hewitt: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests, ISAs are clearly set to be an enormous success.

    363
    I note that in the entire first year in which the previous Government introduced PEPs, 250,000 were sold. One provider alone has already sold more than 250,000 ISAs in the first week since their introduction. We have nearly 400 companies signed up to sell ISAs. National Savings, which was banned by the Conservative Government from selling TESSAs, will be able to sell ISAs through the Post Office as well as through the post. The hon. Gentleman may have observed that the Co-operative bank announced yesterday that it will offer ISAs and make them available at supermarket tills in precisely the low-income communities where we want to encourage more people to take advantage of tax-free savings.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: As my hon. Friend has said, the Government want to make ISAs successful among those lower income families who are the people we need to encourage to save. All the publicity for PEPs and TESSAs in the past few weeks will have soaked up some of the money that may have been available for savings schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that we need to give ISAs a reasonable amount of time before we can judge their success? I am sure that, in 12 months' time, my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say that it has been a successful scheme for lower income families.
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points. He is right to say that the majority of savings schemes are sold in the last few months of the tax year rather than at the beginning of the new tax year. That is another reason why the take-up of ISAs in the first week of their introduction is so very encouraging. We know that the lock-in period that was one of the conditions of TESSAs was one of the biggest barriers to putting money into savings, especially for lower income people. People want to know that they can get at their savings when they want them, and they want to be sure that there are no nasty surprises or excessively high charges hidden in the small print. That is why we have introduced the cost access terms—or CAT—standards for IS As, to ensure that they offer fair charges, easy access and reasonable terms in which people can have confidence.
    Mr. Howard Flight: I put it to the Minister that the demand for ISAs at the beginning of the new financial year is substantially down on the demand for PEPs and TESSAs in the same period last year. In addition, although it is not directly a Treasury area, the uncertainty in pension arrangements between now and 2001 and the introduction of stakeholder pensions is causing a vacuum in pension saving. If one takes together the potential decline in new pension schemes and the lower accumulation in ISAs than obtained in PEPs and TESSAs, I do not see how the savings rate will rise; rather, it will continue to decline.
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman has done nothing but abuse ISAs ever since we announced the plans for them. I regret that he seems to have a vested interest in seeing them fail. On the contrary, we are confident that they will be extremely successful, as the take-up in the first week has already shown.
    The Financial Services Authority has just published guidance to providers on how to advise people to make appropriate provision for their pension savings in
    364
    anticipation of stakeholder pensions. As the hon. Gentleman will know if he has read the consultation document on stakeholder pensions, we will ensure that millions of people on middle incomes, for whom personal pensions have been, in most cases, a disaster because of the charges that were imposed by providers, will in future have access to a low-cost, secure form of provision through the stakeholder pension.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What representations he has received from children with regard to debt relief. [79455]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The Treasury has received around 2,000 letters and postcards from children on the vital question of debt relief. The Government welcome the strong interest shown by many young people in debt relief and the poverty relief that can be made possible by it. Our plan for 2000 is to cut the debt, increase the aid to the poorest countries, sell International Monetary Fund gold to make that possible and increase giving by individuals and companies.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and draw his attention to a letter that I received recently from one of my constituents, seven-year-old Joshua Deegan. Joshua's message is quite straightforward: "Help cancel the debt". For Joshua's sake, but more particularly for the sake of the millions of young children who live in the poorest, most indebted countries, will my right hon. Friend continue to press at every point to ensure that that noble aspiration can be turned into a practical reality in the new millennium?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing to the attention of the House the concerns of one child, which are also the concerns of thousands of children who have taken up the issue. I applaud the work of the Churches and other voluntary organisations that have taken a lead in pressing for the millennium year to be remembered for the debt relief that is made possible.
    I can assure my hon. Friend that, when it comes to the IMF and World bank meetings in the next few days, we shall be pressing our colleagues in other countries to join us in trying to secure in 2000 a debt reduction of $50 billion as a minimum, and an increase in aid to the poorest countries so that they receive $60 billion in 2000. To do that, we want initially to sell $1 billion of IMF gold. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me, as will other hon. Members of all parties, in encouraging individuals in our community to sign up to millennium gift aid, under which the Government and the Treasury will match donations that are given by individuals throughout Britain.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I am sure that it was only an oversight on the part of the Chancellor not to pay tribute to the previous Conservative Government's role in promoting debt relief. The idea of selling IMF gold was particularly promoted by the previous Conservative Chancellor, and many children in Britain supported the Conservative Government's actions in that regard. But may I ask the Chancellor about a quite different form of

    365
    debt relief which is in the offing? What calculation has the Treasury made of the savings on debt interest which will be given to companies as a result of an EU withholding tax, and of the costs that will be imposed on British pension funds if such a tax goes through?
    Mr. Brown: I have already answered the question about the withholding tax and what the Government are doing, and I do not think that it is covered by this issue of debt relief. I am sorry that, on an issue for which there should be all-party support, the hon. Gentleman chooses to turn a question on overseas aid and international debt relief into an obsession with the Conservative party's policies on Europe. I did praise, and have on previous occasions praised, the work of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he seemed to get small thanks from the Conservative party for the work that he did. At the same time, there is an urgency about what we have to do over the next year; and I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will join us in pressing everybody in the country to take part in the campaign to secure international debt relief and make 2000 a year when debt relief is converted into poverty relief too.
    Ms Tess Kingham: For many years, the United Kingdom Government have been at the forefront of pressing to persuade the IMF to sell off gold stocks to finance debt relief in developing countries. If today's media reports are to be believed, that campaign has achieved a measure of success and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his staunch and unending work in this area over the past couple of years. Will he elaborate on the details of today's media reports? What will the time scale for selling the gold stocks be? How much will be sold, and how will this be implemented?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that and for the work that she and others have done in pressing the cause of debt relief. We put the proposal to sell IMF gold to the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting a few weeks ago, as we have done on previous occasions. The American Government have said that they will support the proposal and the German Government, who have resisted in the past, are now in a position to support the proposal. I confidently expect that all G7 members will now support the sale of gold, so the IMF will go ahead with the proposal later this year. We have initially proposed the sale of $1 billion of gold. That is an initial sale that can take place, but there is pressure for more to happen.

    Construction Industry Scheme
    Mr. Brian Cotter: If he will make a statement on the likely impact of the introduction of the construction industry scheme. [79456]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The new construction industry scheme, which commences on 1 August this year, will significantly reduce the opportunity for tax evasion in the building trade. This will be achieved by restricting gross payment certificates to subcontractors who have met their tax obligations on time and have a turnover above the threshold we have set in regulations; and by requiring other subcontractors to register with the Inland Revenue.
    Mr. Cotter: I thank the Minister for that answer. May I point out that the scheme will exclude 200,000
    366
    subcontractors from receiving gross payments? We are told that this is to combat £50 million of tax evasion. However, the figure calculated of tax liability for 714 tax certificate holders is just £1,800 per head. That means that £50 million of tax evasion is being drawn from only 27,000 certificate holders. Is it reasonable that 170,000 honest contractors should suffer being sidelined by contractors and subjected to cash flow problems in order to reach this small minority? May I suggest that there could be a fairer, more efficient way of avoiding this tax evasion than the scheme proposed?
    Dawn Primarolo: I know that the hon. Gentleman has received many representations in his constituency and he has written to me a number of times on this matter, but I should point out some facts to him. The legislation to deal with this abuse in the construction industry, which has the support of the industry, the trade unions and associations, was first introduced to Parliament in 1995 with all-party support. It was further dealt with in legislation in 1996, again with all-party support. The issue is the evasion of tax in this area and was recognised by the industry, the trade unions, the Government and employment tribunals as a result of some hearings. The Government must take action. Instead of worrying about, and undermining, such action, the hon. Gentleman should be supporting the Government in dealing with a very difficult area. He should not break the all-party support that his party has helped to maintain until now.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the proposed schemes announced in the Budget for other contractors follow the path of the construction industry scheme? The suggestion that such a scheme will be introduced for information technology contractors, for example, is causing a great deal of worry among all sorts of self-employed people and those who form single-member limited companies. Exactly what is the Treasury up to?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is confusing a number of items. The clauses in the construction industry scheme which his party initiated, with our support, and which will continue, are designed specifically to deal with the problem of labour-only subcontractors—who used to be called the lump—in the building industry. The turnover threshold that we have introduced is set at a very fair level—lower, I might say, than the one his Government were going to set.

    Shipping (Fiscal Regime)
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: What remit he has given to Lord Alexander's investigation of the fiscal regime for British shipping. [79457]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Lord Alexander has agreed to conduct an independent inquiry into the case for, and design of, a lower rate ring-fenced tonnage-based tax and additional enhanced training incentives for the shipping industry, taking account of the Government's objectives for shipping and the national and international competitiveness issues involved. The inquiry is to conclude as soon as is practicable.
    Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. What assessment have the Government made of the

    367
    possible revenue implications for the Exchequer of a tonnage-based tax such as that in which the Dutch Government are engaged, which has resulted in a 37 per cent. increase in Dutch-flag ships, a 23 per cent. increase in employment in their shipping industry and a 19 per cent. increase in their gross domestic product? Will she confirm that the assessments will be made available to Lord Alexander, so that he can set them alongside the success of the Dutch scheme?
    Dawn Primarolo: Those are precisely the issues that Lord Alexander will be considering in studying tonnage-based tax regimes in other European Union member states and, indeed, elsewhere. He will be supported by the Treasury in ensuring that the figures are detailed and correct, and will be making his recommendations on precisely such information.

    Single Currency
    Mr. Geraint Davies: What recent representations he has received from business on the single currency. [79458]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor receives many representations from business on the single currency.
    Mr. Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that support for the euro among larger international trading companies is much greater—as it is in the City—than among smaller companies, partly because larger companies see the natural trade benefits if we join and the prospective loss of investment if we never join the euro? What action is being taken to inform and advise small and medium companies on the benefits of the single market and the single currency—particularly those that link their supplies to international companies, which obviously have much greater interest in trading in euros?
    Ms Hewitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Our priority for small and medium companies is to help them to adjust and to take advantage of the opportunities that were created by the introduction of the euro earlier this year. Some 750,000 small and medium firms in our country already have trading links with Europe. That is nearly half our small and medium firms. All of them could be affected by the euro, regardless of whether we finally decide to join economic and monetary union. We have been ensuring that they are aware of the euro and its implications, and have been helping them to adjust to that new reality.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister accept that many small to medium enterprises are operating at the margin? They are already reeling from new rulings and regulations from the European Union adopted by the Government, such as the 48-hour directive. Will she explain to the small to medium enterprises that, if we go into a single currency, interest rate policy will be directed from elsewhere and they will have to pay higher interest charges just for the benefit of other parts of the EU?
    Ms Hewitt: My right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement to the House in October 1997 that the overriding test for whether Britain should join the single currency would be whether it would be good for our economy and our businesses, for jobs, for investment and for the City. Of course that includes small businesses, but, at this stage, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the priority is to ensure that small and medium businesses in this country, half of which already have trading links with companies in other parts of the EU, are given all the help that they need to trade with suppliers and customers who use the euro. We are helping small businesses to adjust to the euro. We are also helping them by introducing the lowest rate of corporation tax for small businesses ever in this country.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Minister accept that, since the euro was introduced, it has been managed by the European Central bank to achieve a falling exchange rate against the Anglo-Saxon currencies? That has now been compounded by an interest rate cut in Europe, placing our trading exporters in industries and services in a more difficult position. Can my hon. Friend assure us that she is making representations to the European Central bank to try to prevent competition over exchange rates?
    Ms Hewitt: I would observe that 80 per cent. of the rise in sterling's value came under the Conservative Government. We have made the tough decisions necessary to end the cycle of boom and bust, bring inflation down and get the public finances under control after we inherited from the previous Government a public sector debt of £26 billion. We have created the conditions for economic stability that, in turn, can underpin a stable and competitive exchange rate.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Does the Minister agree that many pro-euro businesses have concerns about the rate at which the pound will join the euro? Will she acknowledge that it is important that the level of the pound be reduced, because it is not competitive? Will she promote a public debate in the country and among our European partners on the sustainable long-term rate for the pound, so that we can join the euro at that rate?
    Ms Hewitt: As I have just said, of course we want a stable and competitive exchange rate. The way to achieve that is to put in place the conditions for economic stability. That is what we have done by giving independence to the Bank of England and by ensuring that inflation falls and stays low. We now have the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 33 years, and the lowest rates of corporation tax ever. Those are the conditions for economic stability that, in turn, will underpin a competitive and stable exchange rate.

    Economy
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: When he next expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the state of the economy. [79459]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meets the Governor of the Bank of England regularly to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell the Governor of the Bank of England and anybody else he bumps into that, in Bolsover and Barnsley, people are not talking about the withholding tax yet? What they are talking about is jobs. Unemployment is a problem that has to be resolved by this Government before the next election. In about 120 or 150 constituencies mainly represented by Labour Members of Parliament, in the coalfields and old industrial areas, unemployment is still too high.
    Will the Minister give a guarantee that, in the next few months, we will ensure that regional aid of all descriptions is not reduced? Will he also ensure that the
    370
    82 recommendations in the coalfields task force report, which would considerably help those areas, will be implemented and that the money will be found as soon as possible?
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is well aware, the Government are considering the recommendations of the report of the coalfields task force. He will be aware that the new regional development agencies have now come into being. They will act as a powerhouse for economic regeneration, especially in regions such as his and mine. He will also be aware that, since the general election, unemployment has continued to fall; employment has continued to go up; an extra 400,000 people are now in work; youth and long-term unemployment have been halved; and the new deal is proving especially effective precisely in communities such as his own that most need the creation of new jobs.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 APRIL—There will be a debate on Kosovo on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 20 APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 21 APRIL—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition day [9th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on Government taxation of the haulage industry. Followed by a debate on the crisis in British livestock farming. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 22 APRIL—Second Reading of the Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 23 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 APRIL—Debate on defence equipment.

TUESDAY 27 APRIL—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 28 APRIL—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 29 APRIL—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 30 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 21 April there will be a debate on air transport competition rules in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 21 April:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 8582/97, Air Transport Competition Rules; Relevant report of the European Legislation Committee: HC 155-vi (1997–98).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the announcement of next week's business and for the indication of business in the following week. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday, following the weekend summit? We welcome the subsequent debate on Kosovo; I know that the right hon. Lady will want to keep the House informed about developments.
I welcome the reinstatement of the first of the new-style debates on defence that the right hon. Lady has announced. However, the debate that was lost was on defence and the world, which was planned on the grounds
372
that it was logical to begin with policy and to move on to personnel and equipment. The debate that she has announced is on equipment. Is there a reason for that change?
There is still a backlog of promised debates: on the royal commission on long-term care; on the reform of the House of Lords; and on the national changeover plan for the euro. The House will expect to debate the recently published White Paper on modernising government and has still not considered the unresolved crisis facing the European Commission. When might we make a start on those important subjects?
There are no opportunities to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland until Wednesday week. Crucial talks have been taking place in the Province and the Secretary of State should keep the House in the picture by making a statement next week. Will the Leader of the House put that proposition to her right hon. Friend?
May the House be given the dates of the Whitsun recess, so that Members and staff can plan their diaries?
Finally, if the Prime Minister plans to be abroad on any future Wednesdays, could he take the Deputy Prime Minister with him and let someone else, perhaps the right hon. Lady, take Prime Minister's questions so as to avoid inflicting on the House the indignity that it suffered yesterday?
Mrs. Beckett: It is anticipated that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement following the NATO summit, although I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that that will be a week on Monday. Of course, we shall continue to keep the House informed about events in Kosovo, as we have done assiduously hitherto.
I am not aware that there is any particular significance in the different title for the MOD debate, but I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about a number of debates on which he said we are building up a backlog. I should point out that we have put in several debates, such as the one on Kosovo on Monday and the one—we had just before the recess. It is right and important that the House should have those debates, but they take up time that might otherwise have been given to other issues.
The issue of long-term care requires considerable thought and preparation. The Government will come to the House when we have something further to say in that respect. We are mindful of the desire to debate the House of Lords White Paper. It is only a week since we had the statement on modernising government, but I have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for debates at some point on that matter and on issues relating to the European Commission.
I do not recall—although I would probably have said that we would consider one—any request for a debate on the changeover plans for the euro. However, I remind the right hon. Gentleman and his party that there is a committee discussing those plans on which the Conservatives are perfectly welcome to sit—indeed, they made a nomination to that committee, which they subsequently withdrew. To be frank, it is a bit much for the Tory party to refuse to engage in discussions on the plans, but then to demand a debate on them in the House.

373
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a statement on Northern Ireland. I shall certainly draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend is doing everything she can to resolve any difficulties that are arising there and that she endeavours to keep the House informed.
I am genuinely sorry to say that I cannot give the House any further information than I have already given on the dates of the Whitsun recess, but I shall do so as soon as I can. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about Prime Minister's Question Time, but I am sure that he has noticed that it is much rarer for the current Prime Minister not to be present at Question Time than it was for his predecessor.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that Mr. Owen Oyston is in prison after being prosecuted on a charge of rape, and that many of us believe that he is innocent. Will she arrange for an early debate on the operation of the criminal cases review body, which lacks the resources to deal with a huge backlog of people who believe that they are innocent and await the referral of their case to the Court of Appeal?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind. He has raised those issues in the House on several occasions and I feel confident that he will continue to do so. We all share the concern about the backlog in dealing with cases of that nature, and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends.
Mr. Paul Tyler: First, will the Leader of the House confirm a news report in the past few minutes that the appeal against disqualification by the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) has been allowed? Would she care to comment on the Conservatives' having presumed, some weeks ago, that they could attempt to move the writ for a by-election in that constituency? What happens next?
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady comment on an issue that I have already raised on several occasions—that of charging for members of the public, including our constituents, to come into the Palace of Westminster? Will she tell us when the promised debate on the matter will take place, so that we—the Members of the House—can make a decision?
Thirdly, we warmly welcome Monday's debate on Kosovo; however, will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, although the main emphasis will be on the military situation, there will be time to consider the issue of refugees, which is becoming a source of considerable concern to people throughout this country? I draw to her attention early-day motion 521:
[That this House congratulates the relief agencies on their efforts in response to the crisis in the Balkans, but regrets the delay in coordinating a response which left many people frustrated and angry that they were unable to offer personal contributions to the disaster relief effort; and calls upon the Government to create in partnership with NGOs a permanent disaster relief contact point with a published emergency hotline phone number where offers of assistance can be logged while a substantive response is coordinated.]
374
The motion was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and now has all-party support. It suggests that there should be a permanent disaster relief contact point. Many hon. Members will have shared my experience over the Easter weekend of trying to contact the various relief charities and finding it impossible to obtain answers to the questions that our constituents asked. I should say that the Department for International Development was manned that weekend.
Many of our constituents generously donated blankets, baby clothes and warm clothing, only to be told much later that what was really required was money. Will the Leader of the House confirm either that the Secretary of State for International Development will contribute to Monday's debate, or that the issue of refugees will be properly covered? If the issue is not properly addressed, a great many people in this country will begin to suffer from charity fatigue, because they will feel that their efforts are not properly appreciated.
Mrs. Beckett: I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's points in reverse order.
We are sympathetic to the proposals in early-day motion 521. I also sympathise with those who provided humanitarian help only to find that they had not done so in the most appropriate manner. The hon. Gentleman is correct: the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence will take part in the debate on Monday. However, I recognise that there may be a wish to take some cognisance of the humanitarian effort, and the Government are giving careful thought to how that subject can be addressed in the context of that debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about charging the public for access to the Palace of Westminster. That matter has been raised in various House Committees and is still under consideration. No decision has been made even to put such a proposal before the House—although that decision may be made at some point. However, I make it clear that such a matter would be a decision for the House as a whole and would be taken only if the House considered it right, having weighed very carefully the many arguments involved.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the appeal, which I understand has been upheld. The implications for the legal case and for the House—to which Madam Speaker reported the earlier decision—must be considered. However, the hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to draw attention to the light it casts on the actions of the Conservative party in seeking to move the writ for a by-election which, if it had had its way, would have been held next Thursday.
Mr. Keith Vaz: When may we debate the convention on the transfer of prisoners convicted abroad? The Leader of the House will know that two of my constituents, Paul Loseby and James Miles, have been in custody in Venezuela for the past two years. The Venezuelan Government have signed the convention, which now needs to be ratified by other countries. Could we debate this matter to ensure that British citizens convicted abroad—there are presently 2,000 Britons in that situation—can be returned to serve their sentences in this country?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the general treatment of British citizens who

375
are imprisoned overseas. I am sure he will know that the British embassy is keeping a careful watch on the individuals to whom he referred and that they are said to be well, in the circumstances. The Foreign Office is examining, and plans to hold a seminar on, issues arising from cases regarding the handling of prisoners.
I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request for a debate on the issue. It is not likely to be easy to find time for such a debate, although my hon. Friend may be aware that the Modernisation Committee is to make a recommendation to the House in the near future that might, if carried, allow more time to consider matters of this kind. My hon. Friend will know that Foreign Office Ministers are aware of those issues and are always willing to discuss them.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: As the first annual report and national plan of the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator is due to be published shortly, will the Leader of the House assure me that a debate will be held in Government time to enable all hon. Members to discuss the national anti-drugs strategy and its effectiveness since the appointment of the drugs tsar?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give an absolute undertaking at this moment to find time for such a debate. However, I have taken on board the hon. Lady's request and will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the concerns of hon. Members on both sides regarding proper discussion of this matter.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on a subject to which my right hon. Friend made a distinguished contribution in her years in opposition: the Treasury supplement? It is interesting to note that the supplement was introduced by the last Liberal Government, but was respected not just by old Labour and old Liberals, but even by old Tories. The Treasury supplement was paid until the late 1980s when it was ended by the previous Government and then reintroduced for a short period when they experienced problems with personal pensions.
Is it not amazing that, if the principle of the Treasury supplement had been respected, it would now be paying £9 billion to the national insurance scheme, it would allow pensioners to receive increases this year on the basis of level of earnings and it would allow repayment of the losses that they suffered for all those years under the previous Government, who cheated pensioners every year that they were in office? Is it not right that we return to a principle that was respected by Governments of all parties for 80 years, until wrongly ended by the previous Government?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I suspect that there are only a handful of Members in the Chamber who have the faintest idea what he and I are talking about. My hon. Friend is right to say that the previous Government took a sweeping step in first eroding and then removing the Treasury supplement. The supplement was the basis of the original welfare state settlement. My hon. Friend will know that the way in which benefits are dealt with and awarded and the way in which money is raised for the benefits system were
376
transformed out of all recognition by the previous Government. It is this Government's aim to devise a new welfare settlement and to consider again how that settlement is funded. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I am not at all sure that he shares the view that we should return to the original historic basis of funding the scheme.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The shadow Leader of the House referred to a debate on Northern Ireland and linked that with the fact that it will be two weeks before we have Northern Ireland questions. The House will be aware that some hon. Members are no longer tabling questions on Northern Ireland. However, those of us who do find that we rarely get into the first half dozen, which means that pertinent questions from Northern Ireland Members are not followed through with supplementary questions.
Against that background, may I press the Leader of the House for a debate on Northern Ireland? I appreciate that there will be differences of opinion across the Chamber, but surely we can unite to support the Prime Minister's interpretation that no one can be in government in a democratic community who is backed by armed terrorists.
Mrs. Beckett: I appreciate the particular sensitivity of Northern Ireland Members in seeking to raise issues across the Floor of the House. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the vagaries of the Order Paper are a difficulty for all Members in all circumstances. I shall bear in mind, as I have undertaken to do to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the concern that has been expressed for a further opportunity in the near future to discuss Northern Ireland matters, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I accept that it was right not to have a statement today before the facts were fully known about what happened during the air strike on the refugees in Kosovo, but will my right hon. Friend consider whether there should be a statement tomorrow, when things will be a bit clearer? The urgency is that, with fast-flying aircraft, with pilots having to make split-second decisions while looking at all kinds of instruments and wondering whether they are locked on by lasers from the ground, and with many other complications, such incidents will inevitably happen again, again and again. That is the urgency and that is why there should be a statement tomorrow.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right—I am grateful for his recognition of the fact—to say that there is still a great deal that we do not know about the incident that took place so recently. Were it not for the fact that we shall be having a debate on Kosovo on Monday, I would be more ready to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that perhaps we should consider a statement tomorrow. However, I say to him in all honesty that the matter is so complex and difficult that it may well be that we shall not know much more by tomorrow. As we are able to have a debate on Monday, when it is to be hoped that the position will be much clearer, I think it right to await that debate.

377
I understand my hon. Friend's underlying point that a statement might have an influence on those who are putting their own lives in danger in attempting to deal with the situation in Kosovo. I have no doubt that every member of the armed forces, whether British or otherwise, has very much taken on board the lessons of the terrible event to which my hon. Friend has referred.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I raise with the right hon. Lady again the question of Monday's debate on Kosovo? I recognise, of course, that the debate is on the Adjournment, and that that is in accordance with precedent. The Conservative party, when in government, had a number of debates on the Adjournment dealing with military action, so I make no criticism on that point. However, the precedent is surely not a satisfactory one. In a democracy, when a Government are taking military action in order to achieve stated objectives, they should come to Parliament to get consent both to the action and to the explicit objectives. Indeed, no consent by the House has yet been given. Therefore, instead of a debate on the Adjournment, would it not be much better to have a debate on a substantive motion that sets out the explicit objectives and seeks the authority of the House both for the action and the objectives?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, quite correctly, that that is not the precedent. The Government do not rest simply on that fact. The precedent is that we have debates on the Adjournment precisely because successive Governments, Labour and Tory alike, have taken the view that that is the right way in which to proceed. The prior authority of Parliament is not required. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to change the historical and the constitutional position. Of course it is a matter of grave concern that military forces are committed. Such a decision is never taken lightly. However, the Government do not take the view that now is the time to change precedent that was set for admirably strong reasons.
Ms Diane Abbott: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 465?
[That this House notes that the Government plans to take away all benefits from men, women and children currently seeking asylum, and that instead they will receive accommodation, food vouchers and a small amount in cash; further notes that the cash amount proposed for asylum seeker children is 50 pence a day; believes that no mother can meet the needs of a young child, over and above food and accommodation, on 50 pence a day; and urges the Government to reconsider this proposal.]
The early-day motion has all-party support. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the arrangements for the children of asylum seekers? In their new legislation, the Government propose, among other things, to withdraw all benefits from asylum seekers and to replace them with hostel accommodation, food vouchers and a sum of money in cash. The cash sum proposed for children is 50p a day. I am the mother of a seven-year-old son. Even allowing for the fact that food and accommodation will be paid for, one cannot look after a child on 50p a day. If the Government's proposal were
378
more widely known, there would be great public distaste, especially from our own supporters in the country. It cannot be right or part of a fair policy to force asylum-seeker mothers to look after their children on 50p a day. I urge the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on the subject.
Mrs. Beckett: I remind my hon. Friend that the Immigration and Asylum Bill is under consideration in Committee, where such matters can be thoroughly debated and thrashed out. Those issues will no doubt be raised again on many occasions during further discussion of the Bill. I understand, as will all hon. Members, the point that my hon. Friend makes. However, she has identified and clarified the fact that the long-term arrangements proposed by the Home Office cover all the basic essentials of life and of support for families. What we are talking about is spending money, but I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I am confident that those matters will be fully explored without the need for an additional debate at this time.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Leader of the House grant us an early debate on the United Kingdom's relations with Latin America? Is she aware that, as a consequence of the Government's actions, Chile has recognised Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands and terminated the only direct civil air link to the Falklands? Will she ensure that, in future, the Government put the interests of the British taxpayer and the British nation first in their relations with Latin America?
Mrs. Beckett: The Government are always mindful of the interests of the British taxpayer and the British nation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Government who, quite rightly, signed up to an international convention against torture. Such matters must from time to time be taken into account. With regard to his wish to have an opportunity to raise concerns about our relationship with Latin America, may I remind him that Foreign Office questions take place on Tuesday?
Mr. David Winnick: When the debate on Kosovo takes place on Monday, can the Foreign Secretary definitely give us an accurate picture of what happened yesterday, whoever was responsible? Many of us, certainly the large majority of hon. Members, deplore the loss of civilian lives and sympathise with the loved ones who are left behind.
Is it not true that, if the Serbian leadership had been willing to accept the reasonable terms for a settlement in Kosovo, there would have been no military intervention of any sort and the horrors that have taken place in Kosovo, including ethnic cleansing, would have stopped, I hope, permanently?
Mrs. Beckett: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The Foreign Secretary will give the House as much information as he possibly can about yesterday's tragic event. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks and his view that none of this would be happening were the Serbian President to accept the proposals that have been put forward and to come to talks, recognising that the ethnic cleansing and the action of his armed forces must cease.
Mr. Eric Forth: Given the Prime Minister's pathetically obsequious support for

379
Mr. Prodi as President of the European Commission, and Mr. Prodi's almost admirable clarity of expression in the past few days in voicing his desire to build a federal Europe, may we have an urgent debate to tease out what the Prime Minister thinks will happen to this country as a result of Mr. Prodi becoming President of the Commission? How can the Prime Minister square what he was saying about Europe before the general election with his support for someone who is a confessed federast?
Mrs. Beckett: That is an interesting invention of a word.
The Prime Minister has been careful. It was unanimously the view of the leaders of the European member states that Mr. Prodi should become the new President of the Commission. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Prime Minister are ridiculous. My right hon. Friend has been careful not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor in talking about his choice of Mr. Santer. I remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that the new President of the Commission—if he is endorsed—talks continually about a greater role for the Council of Ministers and, indeed, the European Parliament in guiding the Commission. I believe that that is what hon. Members on both sides of the House want.
Mr. Phil Hope: May we have an early debate on recent Government measures to support families, particularly this month's record increase in child benefit, which will benefit some 14,500 families in my constituency? I need not remind my right hon. Friend that that contrasts all too starkly with the Conservative party's record when in government. It froze child benefit for three consecutive years, clearly revealing its view of support for family life. Does she agree that, in such a debate, we could show that 6 million families will be £2.95 a week better off as a result of the Labour Government?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but the Finance Bill debates are next week. He and other hon. Members may find an opportunity to raise not only the issue of how much the Government are doing through child benefit, which I agree contrasts starkly with the record of the Conservative party, but the other proposals that the Government are putting forward, including the working families tax credit, which will transform the position of low-income families in particular.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the Chancellor's complacent reply this morning at Treasury questions, may we have an early debate in Government time on the provision of debt relief for poor countries? Does the right hon. Lady understand that such a debate would afford Ministers the opportunity to announce the freezing of such aid to Zimbabwe, whose President has foolishly cut links with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, and would allow the Government instead to redirect the resources available to countries such as Mozambique, which are poorer, better run and show greater respect for human rights?
Mrs. Beckett: I am pleased as well as surprised to hear a Conservative Member praising Mozambique and the
380
actions of its Government. I did not hear what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said earlier but, knowing him as I do, I am confident that he was not complacent. He works very hard to secure progress on debt relief, as did his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). The whole House will welcome the possibility of movement on IMF gold sales and the general pressure to relieve the debt of highly indebted countries.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the relationship between the UK and the EU in the regulation of genetically modified organisms? I pay tribute to Agriculture and Environment Ministers for responding to public concerns and tightening the regulatory and scrutiny process. However, their actions could be circumvented by corporations going through the European route. My right hon. Friend will know that, in December last year, I was involved in the launch of the "GenetiX Snowball" public action handbook, which sets out how concerns on GM issues can be raised in this country. I am asking for a debate because there are now concerns that companies could use European regulatory systems, which involve less rigorous scrutiny, but would give them authorisation to plant and grow in the UK.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate along those lines in the near future, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's concerns to the attention of Ministers. With ingenuity, he may be able to use the debate on livestock farming to raise some of the general issues about the handling of agriculture, if he is fortunate enough to catch Madam Speaker's eye.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Could we have a debate next week or the week after on long-term unemployment, particularly among 18 to 24-year-olds? The right hon. Lady will know that long-term unemployment in that age group came down rapidly for about five years. The new deal has been running for a year and statistics will be published next week, although I understand that they will be fiddled so that they are not presented in the same way as before. We should be able to have a debate to find out why unemployment among that group, who are having billions of pounds spent on them under the new deal, has increased over the past year rather than going down, as the Government and everybody else had hoped.
Mrs. Beckett: I am astonished that any Conservative Member has the gall to mention anything to do with fiddling unemployment statistics. I have lost track of whether it was 32 or 35 times that the Conservatives changed the way in which the unemployment figures were calculated, but we all know why they did it and what the effect was. The Government are pleased that long-term unemployment among young people has gone down by more than 50 per cent.—almost 55 per cent., in fact—since the election. About 250,000 young people have joined the new deal and around 60,000 have moved into jobs. I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment would like a debate on the issue, but I fear that the pressure on the time of the House is such that I shall have to disappoint him. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is another Opposition day coming up. If he is

381
so confident in the Conservative party's brilliant record on the issue, perhaps he should press his Front Bench to select it for debate.
Angela Smith: Early-day motion 493, in support of the minimum wage, says:
[That this House looks forward to the introduction of the national minimum wage on 1st April, which will tackle the scandal of poverty pay levels encouraged by the previous Conservative administration; notes that this is yet another example of the Labour government delivering on its promises; and in particular congratulates the Right honourable Member for Makerfield for the years of dedicated campaigning and policy work he has undertaken to ensure the introduction of the national minimum wage and fairness at work for millions of people, achieved with the growing support of the business community.]
Two weeks after its implementation, could we have a debate on the minimum wage? I am concerned that workers should be aware of their rights and eligibility. It would be useful for the public if there was a debate in the House of Commons. In my constituency, more than 1,200 people are benefiting from the national minimum wage.
The main reason why I should like to have such a debate is that, although the official Opposition oppose the national minimum wage, they have not made it clear whether they would reject it if they were ever to win another general election. Could we have such a debate, so that the public might know where the official Opposition stand on the issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's call for such a debate. I recognise, as she said, the importance of people across the country knowing their entitlement to the national minimum wage. The Government are doing as much as we can to make that known. I also sympathise with her concern to learn the Conservative party's view on the issue. As she rightly said, Conservative Members fought the minimum wage tooth and nail, and have yet to come clean about whether they would abolish it. I fear, however, that I have to disappoint her. Were we to try to have debates on all the many matters on which the Conservative party has yet to declare its policy stance, we should do nothing else.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on education, education, education? Across the country, it is about the time of year when parents are learning whether their youngsters will be able to go to certain schools. More than 50 parents in Clitheroe have been told that their children will not be able to go to Ribblesdale school, and that all the other local schools are full. They are now being told that their youngsters will have to be bussed many miles, out of their area, to get a decent education. I cannot believe that Clitheroe is unique in that experience. In this day and age, surely it cannot be right for youngsters to be asked to get up at 6.30 am to travel many miles outside their local education authority area to get a decent education.
Mrs. Beckett: It is always a source of concern to the House when it is not possible for every child to be accommodated in the school of their parents' choice. One of the most stupid and ill-directed things that the
382
Conservative party did in government was to pretend to people that there could ever be absolute, unfettered parental choice, regardless of school size or places. However, as a result of what we have already done—in less than two years—to put money into education and to reduce class sizes, there has been a net increase of 12,000 places available in popular schools. So the hon. Gentleman's complaints are certainly not the responsibility of this Government.
Mr. Huw Edwards: As we approach the Welsh general election, may I ask my right hon. Friend if we may have an early debate on the Government's commitment to invest an extra £1 billion in the national health service in Wales and an extra £844 million in education in Wales in the next three years?
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 523? It states:
[That this House congratulates the Welsh Rugby Union team on their magnificent 32-31 win over England at Wembley; and notes the particular achievement of Neil Jenkins in scoring 22 points, coach Graham Henry and captain Robert Howley.]
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend should rest content with having been at the match, rather than using the Floor of the House to gloat over those who were less fortunate. Although I am reluctant to be drawn into commenting on the issue of the Welsh rugby team and its successes, I certainly share his view that it is important that we should remind the British public and the public in Wales of the resources that the Government are already making available, after less than two years, to improve the health and education services that are such a high priority for the British people. We shall continue to seek opportunities to get that message across. I fear, however, that I cannot promise him an early debate.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I reiterate the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—in the light of the right hon. Lady's entirely unsatisfactory response to it—that the Prime Minister should come to the House to explain and defend his support for Romano Prodi as head of the European Commission? She must be aware that Mr. Prodi has explicitly stated that his aim is to create a single economy and a single state in Europe. The House is therefore entitled to know whether the Prime Minister supports those aims, or whether it was just sheer ignorance that led him to support the nomination of someone whose political aims are anathema to the people of this country.
Mrs. Beckett: A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing very much, I am afraid. I should be more impressed by Conservative Members' complaints about anyone moving to create a single economy in Europe had not the Conservative party driven through the Single European Act.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Could the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate next year—[Interruption.]—next week, on the occult, secretive and criminal behaviour of senior Conservatives in Yorkshire, involving the embezzlement of a great deal of money? Is she aware that the senior South Yorkshire Tory,

383
Mr. Graham Pugh, the treasurer of the Doncaster Conservative club, has walked away with £33,000 of money entrusted to his care? The scandal is that the Conservative party is not seeking any police or other action to get the money back, and is trying to cover it up. Is that not in contrast to the actions of the Labour party, which has suspended councillors, brought in the police and done everything to ensure that, as far as possible, we run a clean ship? Labour's action is in contrast to that of the Conservative party in Yorkshire—where the leader of the Conservative party comes from—which is taking no action on that criminal activity. We need a full debate to expose the corruption and criminality of the Conservatives in South Yorkshire.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to learn of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I share his view—it has been made plain on many occasions—that it is this party that is determined to try to ensure high standards in public life, and to pursue anyone who falls short of those standards. However, I fear that I cannot promise a specific debate on the matter, not even if my hon. Friend is prepared to wait until next year.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Approximately 100,000 jobs are at risk in small rural food-producing businesses. Businesses such as abattoirs and cheese makers have been hit by a deluge of regulation and dramatic cost increases; as much as 10 times in some cases. If BMW had not done a deal with the Government to save Longbridge, 50,000 jobs in the west midlands would have been at risk. Here, we are talking about 100,000 jobs spread across rural England which will not be replaced. This is a matter of real urgency which justifies an immediate debate in the House.
Mrs. Beckett: There is likely to be a debate next week in which the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends may be able to raise those matters. The Government are conscious of the difficulties to which he draws attention, and we are doing everything that can be done to alleviate them. However, he will recognise that there has been growing concern in recent years over issues of hygiene and food safety. It is important to try to get the right balance, although no one is arguing that we have it yet.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Can we have an early debate on party political funding through foreign
384
donations? The Leader of the House will be aware from press reports yesterday of the £18,000 that the Conservative party received in the run-up to the last general election from a Serbian company with close links to the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. Since the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, the Conservative party has made it clear that it sees no problem with the source of that funding. That attitude will be regarded with shock and repugnance by the vast majority of people in this country. Will my right hon. Friend therefore organise an early debate so that the Conservative party can explain and justify itself?
Mrs. Beckett: There will be a debate at some point on party funding, and certainly this party has set its face against foreign donations. I heard the well-timed and well-delivered intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) yesterday. I am sorry to learn that his appeal for that money to go to the refugees in Kosovo fell on stony ground.
Mr. Graham Brady: Is the Leader of the House aware that, through parliamentary written answers, I have obtained clear evidence of blatant political bias in appointments made to NHS trusts and health authorities? Since 1 May 1997, some 228 Labour councillors have been appointed to those bodies. Will she ensure that the House has an early opportunity to debate what is a clear abuse of the Government's position?
Mrs. Beckett: I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. Despite the conclusions that he may have drawn from answers to parliamentary questions, he should be aware that the Commissioner for Public Appointments, in his annual report last year, reported that he had done a careful audit of NHS appointments and had found no evidence whatsoever of Ministers intervening to ensure the advantage of their nominees. I can understand the discrepancy between the hon. Gentleman's and the commissioner's interpretation. I can well believe that the former sees as blatant political bias the fact that any Labour members are appointed to the bodies from which the Conservatives sought to remove them altogether, but I fear that I cannot agree with that interpretation.

Orders of the Day

  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The function of the criminal justice system must be wider than merely dispensing justice. Every part of the system has a role to play in reducing crime and the fear of crime. As the House knows, tackling youth crime is one of our top priorities. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created a new primary aim for the whole of the youth justice system to reflect that for the first time in statute. The aim is clear: to prevent offending by young people.
  We need to deal firmly but constructively with young people who break the law. We must make them understand that offending behaviour will not be tolerated and ensure that they take responsibility for their behaviour as we try to deal with the factors that underlie it, such as drug and alcohol abuse, truanting and lack of parental support.
  The Bill creates a new way of dealing with young offenders who appear in court for the first time, by referral to what we describe as youth offender panels. The panels aim to tackle the causes of the offenders' criminal behaviour so that their first appearance in court may, in many more cases, be their last.
  The Bill is also designed to help the criminal justice system deliver justice for the people who are affected by crime. It has been a constant theme, across the parties, that, whatever the merits of our criminal justice system—and it has many merits—over the years, the interests of the victim and of the wider community have been undesirably marginalised. We must re-establish the system so that proper dignity and respect are given to the victim and to the community, both of whom are directly and indirectly victimised by crime. The victim must have a proper role to play in the system.
  Under our proposals, all young offenders referred to youth offender panels will have to make reparation to their victims or to the wider community so that they understand the impact of their crimes. We are building on ideas of what has been described as restorative justice: a polysyllabic word designed to convey the idea that the justice system should try to restore some balance into the community and that the perpetrators of crime should deliver an element of justice to those who have been affected by them.
  The ideas in the Bill draw on a great deal of experience both abroad—especially in New Zealand, where the family conferencing arrangements appear to be very successful—and at home, where some innovative experiments have been undertaken, notably the restorative justice projects in the Thames Valley police area, under the leadership of Charles Pollard, the chief constable.
  The Bill provides practical measures to help victims and witnesses of crimes to come forward and give evidence at trials. At present, in far too few rape cases is
  386
  there a satisfactory conclusion for the complainant: a caution or conviction. It is right, especially in so-called acquaintance rape rather than stranger rape cases, that the key issue of consent should properly be aired.
  In such cases, it may well be that there will be a higher rate of acquittal than for some other offences, but it cannot be satisfactory that, at present, only one in 10 of complaints of rape end in either caution or conviction. We have to do better. The victims of rape and other sexual assaults must be given the confidence not only to report the crime to the police in the first place but to take the case to trial.
  In our manifesto, we said that we would provide greater protection for complainants in rape and sexual offence trials, and for other people who are subject to intimidation. After the election, we set up a working group to consider how the criminal justice system could improve the way in which it treated victims and witnesses.
  In June last year, the group published its report, a weighty and impressive document called, "Speaking up for Justice", which made 78 recommendations, 26 of which needed legislation. The Bill now takes those recommendations forward.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I am a bit concerned about my right hon. Friend's assumption that rape cases are likely to have a lower success rate than other cases. He seemed to assume that that was reasonable. Surely that cannot be so, because the standard of evidence that the Crown Prosecution Service asks for is already extremely high before such cases even get to court. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider his view that they are likely to have a lower success rate.
  Mr. Straw: What I said was not an opinion—it was merely a statement of fact. With great respect to my hon. Friend, there is a difference. Even in my case, and holding the office that I do, although I would like it if everything that I said happened to be true simply by virtue of the fact that I said it, I find that that is not necessarily so.
  The point that I was trying to make is that, when we are dealing with the facts about sexual offences, especially rape allegations, it is important to distinguish between what has been called stranger rape and what has been called acquaintance rape. With stranger rape, when typically there has been a violent and sudden attack on a woman not know to the assailant, the issue is rarely whether a rape has taken place; the evidence is incontrovertible. The issue is almost always the identity of the assailant.
  In acquaintance rape, the reverse is the case. The identity of the alleged assailant is by definition known. The issue, which is always complicated, because we must remain aware that we are dealing with a justice system, is almost always whether a rape actually took place—in other words, whether there was consent to sexual intercourse.
  That raises some complicated questions and, given the complexity of the issues, it is a simple fact that, with the best will in the world, a higher proportion of such cases are likely to end in acquittal than other cases that may be more straightforward. That is not a matter of opinion; I am merely stating some facts.

  387
  However, we want to ensure that, when a rape has taken place, whether it was an acquaintance rape or a stranger rape—and we should deal in particular with the issue of acquaintance rape—there is a greater likelihood of the case being reported to the police and brought to court and, where the charge is just, ending in a conviction.
  Ms Julia Drown: Would not the CPS use the same criteria in either case, which should mean the same success rate whether the case that reached court was an acquaintance rape or any other kind of rape? The Bill is concerned with cases that reach the court, and they should be considered in exactly the same way, whichever type of rape is involved.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right. The basic principles that Crown prosecutors have to follow are the same for any offence. I shall deal with the detail later. We seek to secure a situation in which, because it should be easier to pursue a case to court and then, where it is just, to obtain a conviction, the CPS will no longer have to make a rational judgment that—because of the way in which a case may be derailed by what many would regard as irrelevant, but aggressive, cross-examination about a woman's previous sexual history—that case is not likely to lead to a conviction, and may even be withdrawn from the jury at the end of the prosecution case.
  Part I builds on the principles of restorative justice that we set out in the White Paper "No More Excuses", published in November 1997. Those principles mean ensuring that young offenders take responsibility for their actions, make reparation to their victims, and can be reintegrated into the law-abiding community. In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we used those principles to reform the youth justice system overall. We created a final warning scheme for young offenders who are cautioned by the police, and a new sentence of a reparation order. Both schemes allow for imaginative interventions to ensure that young people confront the impact that their crimes have had on their victims and make reparation.
  Although it is early days yet, the indications—from the experience of the youth offending teams operating in the pilot areas—are that the final warnings are a success. Instead of young offenders getting a warning with a wag of a finger, or a conditional discharge after which the offenders walk from court with no other intervention in their lives, youth offending teams are intervening in the lives of young offenders and their parents to try to get them to face up to what they have done.
  We have built on those principles in designing the new referral orders. All offenders who are referred will have to make some kind of reparation, whether it is meeting the victim face to face, writing a letter of apology, or painting out graffiti to make good damage to the community.
  I am glad to see a Scottish Member present in the Chamber. We have drawn on the experience of New Zealand and of the Scottish children's panels, which I have visited, and it is striking how much higher public confidence is in the youth justice arrangements in Scotland than in those in England and Wales. I remember writing to colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party before the election asking whether they had comments on the youth
  388
  justice systems in England, Wales and Scotland and to feed back any information that they had. Overwhelming concern was obvious among colleagues from England and Wales about the ramshackle nature of the youth justice system, but the Scottish system received considerable support from Scottish colleagues. It is not perfect, as everybody recognises, but, by seeking to engage the youngsters and their parents in an inquisitorial rather than adversarial system, it has much more to recommend it.
  The panel will operate outside the confines of the youth court. It will be able to discuss the consequences of young offenders' behaviour with them, their family and other supporters, and thoroughly investigate their circumstances so that action can be taken, wherever possible, to stop re-offending.
  One of the major criticisms of the youth justice system that we all have, especially those of us who have visited it, is the dreadful spectacle of the young offender being a bystander to the theatre of the court. I have often sat at the back of a youth court—having had to obtain the court's permission to attend, because the hearings are private, although we are also seeking to change that—and seen young offenders who are. at best, detached and observing the proceedings without any engagement in them. They are talked at or talked through, but never talked to. At worst, the young offenders have an insolent attitude to what is taking place and are wholly alienated from it. We are trying to change that situation. We are trying to involve young offenders fully in panel meetings; and to oblige them to face up to what they have done and sign up to a programme of future action.
  That approach is no easy alternative. Referral to the panel will be a court sentence, and the local youth offender team will be closely monitoring young offenders' compliance with the programme. Non-compliance will see them back in court for re-sentencing and, at that point, the court will have available all the sentences that are currently available. For many young offenders, the panel meetings will be an early opportunity to turn their lives around. That opportunity must be available to all young people who are ready to accept that they have done wrong and ready to make changes. That is why we want referral to youth offender panels to be the standard way to deal with first-time offenders who plead guilty. The Scottish arrangement is that an issue of fact—which happens infrequently—goes before the sheriff, but, if offenders plead guilty, they go straight to a youth panel. The new system is not a direct replication of that, but will build on the Scottish experience for England and Wales.
  In other words, referral should be mandatory unless the court thinks that custody or an absolute discharge is more appropriate. That is why we firmly believe that offenders who have already started to take responsibility for their actions by pleading guilty would benefit most from the new approach. Therefore, we shall seek to reverse amendments made in the other place which made referral discretionary rather than mandatory for the target group of young offenders.
  Where there is a multiple set of charges and a plea of guilty to one or more of the offences but not guilty to others, it will be open to the court, under the Bill as originally printed, to exercise its discretion on whether to make a referral to the youth offender panel.
  I have referred to the experience in Thames Valley. With the consent of the parties, 1 had the privilege of witnessing a restorative justice arrangement. It was

  389
  impressive and far more thorough in engaging the young offenders and their parents than anything that I have seen in the youth court.
  Before the panel were two offenders who had jointly taken part in thieving from a changing room. The victim who ran the organisation was present. Although she was not directly victimised, in practice she was the victim and had been under suspicion herself, entirely wrongly, for what had taken place. The mother of one boy and the father of the other were also there.
  That meeting was facilitated by an extremely skilful police constable who had been trained in that area. She literally confronted the offenders with what they had done and got them to understand, through conversation with the victim, that there was a victim.
  In particular, in the course of the meeting, one of the parents tried to excuse his son's behaviour. It became pretty clear from that that one reason why his son had gone down that road was that he had had no guidance from his father, and there was quite a confrontation with the father as well. It really was a case of justice being properly dispensed, and that was of great benefit not only to the offenders but to the victim.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates the necessity of parents at all times being part of the youth offender panel? Is there not a loophole in the Bill, in that children who are looked after might sometimes be represented only by a local authority representative? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that to ensure that parents of children, even when they are looked after—it is perhaps more important when they are looked after—are required to take part in the youth offender panel?
  Mr. Straw: I am told that the Bill says that that may or may not be appropriate. The basic principle is clear and runs throughout the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as well as this Bill. We want parents to be involved and to take responsibility for their children's actions, so far as that is reasonable, but also to recognise that, as the immediate carers of the children and the people most responsible for them—even if a local authority may have care for the time being—they have important responsibilities. I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend says. We should perhaps consider some amendments. As with other aspects of the Bill, we think that this is good, but not perfect, and we are always open to suggestions.
  Part II is targeted at victims and witnesses whose youth or disability makes it particularly difficult for them to give evidence at court, and at witnesses who are so frightened or distressed at the prospect of giving evidence that they would rather drop the charges against an alleged criminal than face that criminal in court.
  It is worth considering the statistics for witness intimidation, although they show only the tip of the iceberg. In 1995, there were 370 convictions—not complaints—for witness intimidation. In 1993, a study suggested that 75 per cent. of cases discontinued in one month were discontinued because a witness was missing or refused to give evidence. That amounts to 1 per cent. of all criminal cases. Again, that represents the tip of the iceberg.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Clause 27 provides a bar on witnesses giving evidence in person,
  390
  in other words by pre-recorded video recording. May I respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State that we might be able to adopt the present procedure in cases involving children where there is a live video link of evidence from a place outside the court? Might that not be preferable to a pre-recording?
  Mr. Straw: It may be. The hon. Gentleman may wish to approach the Committee of Selection to get on to the Standing Committee. As I have said, we think that the provision is good, but we do not regard it as perfect. This is a complicated area and, if suggestions are made, either in Committee or in writing to my hon. Friend the Minister or myself, we shall consider them constructively.
  The Bill reforms the law on competence so that anyone who can understand questions that they are asked and give answers that the court can understand can give evidence at trial, unsworn if necessary. It gives witnesses practical help to give those answers.
  Under chapter I of part II, courts will have a menu of measures available to them which they can award to any witnesses who need help to give their best evidence, whether because of a disability, because of the frightening or upsetting nature of the case or simply because they are children.
  Some of the measures, such as intermediaries and communication aids, are designed to help witnesses communicate with the court. Others are designed to reduce the stress of the court experience: screens, clearing the court, allowing the witness to give evidence through a live link, or admitting a video recording in place of the witness's main evidence. Courts will also be able to direct that witnesses should be cross-examined on video before the trial.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: There seem to be considerable difficulties in cross-examining on video before a case has got under way, if only because, until the case has got under way and has become fully deployed, it is frequently difficult to know what the key issues will be. If one is faced with difficulty in challenging a witness because the examination on video has already taken place, the case of the defendant might well be severely prejudiced.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's exact point. His experience in court is much greater than mine, but I can think of many examples from the time when I practised when, with the best will in the world, it was impossible to predict the course of events until the drama, as it were, started. That is in the nature of the trial process. I found it salutary on a number of occasions when I thought either that I had an absolute winner or a stone-cold loser of a case to find that the reverse was the truth. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct to raise that concern.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State reminds me that it is to try to deal with that circumstance that we have provided for there to be secondary disclosure as well as primary disclosure before cross-examination on video in advance of trial. It is worth taking these powers. They will be used sparingly and in special situations. I repeat that we are ready to consider appropriate changes if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has particular suggestions to make. There is no suggestion that such cross-examination would become routine, but we seek to deal with some of the major problems that exist.

  391
  Some of the measures are already available for some witnesses. Child witnesses can already give evidence through video recordings and live links under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The Bill makes the measures more widely available: courts will be able to award them to any witness who is eligible under the Bill. That includes complainants in rape and serious sexual offence trials, who will be presumed eligible unless the court is satisfied that they do not need help.
  To return to a point raised earlier, the Bill also protects complainants in sexual offence cases from humiliating and irrelevant cross-examination designed to intimidate and undermine them.
  Chapter II bans unrepresented defendants from personally cross-examining complainants in rape and sexual offence trials, and gives the court the power to impose bans on defendants' personally cross-examining witnesses in other cases where the witness needs protection. This is not a new idea and it is important to put that on the record. There has been a ban on defendants' personally cross-examining child witnesses in sexual and violent offence cases since the Criminal Justice Act 1991. There has been some suggestion that, if we extend that ban, it will somehow lead to miscarriages of justice. We know of no example of the use of the power in the 1991 Act leading to any allegation of a miscarriage of justice. Under this Bill, we propose to extend the ban to cover offences of kidnapping, child abduction and forced imprisonment.
  We are going beyond the powers of the 1991 Act to make arrangements for defendants who do not want to appoint a lawyer to conduct the whole of their defence. They will be able to appoint a lawyer just to cross-examine, and conduct the rest of the case themselves. If they refuse to appoint their own lawyer, the court will be able to appoint a lawyer to test the evidence on their behalf. So witnesses' evidence will not go untested, and defendants' right to a fair trial will not be affected. However, I am clear that the ban will protect witnesses' right not to be mistreated in court.
  Mr. Hogg: I can conceive of many circumstances in which a defendant who has refused to appoint a lawyer and has had one appointed by the court to conduct the relevant cross-examination will decline to give instructions to that lawyer. In those circumstances, there would be no effective cross-examination because there could be no effective cross-examination.
  Mr. Straw: With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we have thought of exactly that circumstance. We have anticipated that somebody may virtually refuse to recognise the court, or regard as a fundamental liberty the right to cross-examine in person and withdraw from any co-operation. I do not accept his conclusion that cross-examination would therefore be impossible, because the lawyer who is brought in, as it were on someone's behalf, to assist the court will have access to all the papers.
  In many such cases, the line of defence will be pretty obvious. To be blunt, in a stranger rape case, the accused will be the wrong person, and in an acquaintance rape case, the woman will either have consented to the alleged
  392
  sexual intercourse or the alleged sexual intercourse will not have taken place. So I do not honestly think that there is a forensic difficulty. It will obviously be easier if the defendant gives instructions, but not doing so will not by any means render the arrangement impossible.
  In putting before the House the reasons for this change, I have only to mention Ralston Edwards and Milton Brown. They were defendants in rape cases and used the opportunity of cross-examination to humiliate and intimidate the women whom they were alleged to have raped. That was completely unacceptable; we cannot have that. Of course, at the same time, we must ensure that the justice system is exactly that: just.
  It is wrong for the trial process to be abused in such a way. Given the abuse of power and trust that a sexual offence trial involves, further intimidation in court must act as a very powerful deterrent to victims who are deciding whether to press charges. Unless we impose a total ban on personal cross-examination in rape and sexual offence cases, as we are proposing, we cannot rule out that possibility for complainants.
  Fear of confrontation with the alleged rapist is only one reason why rape victims often do not press their cases through to trial. Another reason is the fear—it is a justifiable fear—that the trial will focus not on the alleged offence but on an examination of the complainant's past sexual behaviour and character. Indeed, in her research on the treatment of rape complainants in court. Sue Lees found that, in more than half of the cases with which she was concerned, the complainant was subject to unjustifiable examination of her sexual history.
  It is plain that past sexual behaviour is sometimes relevant in sexual offence trials, but there is clear evidence that it is being introduced too often and that a much better framework is needed to set out when it should not be admitted. Chapter III of part II provides that framework.
  Clause 40 places tight restrictions on evidence and questioning about a complainant's sexual behaviour before and after the alleged offence. We do not believe that someone's sexual behaviour, whether promiscuous, chaste or somewhere in between, is generally relevant to whether they have consented to have sex with a particular person on a particular occasion—still less is it relevant to whether they are reliable witnesses. Sexual behaviour will still be admissible as evidence where it is really relevant to an issue at trial such as whether sex took place or whether the defendant honestly believed that the complainant was consenting, but the Bill will limit the ability of the defence to use the complainant's past to distract the jury from the issues at trial.
  Mr. Cohen: Much of what the Bill does to limit the use of a woman's past sexual history as evidence in such trials is right, but will my right hon. Friend consider the loophole that I believe still exists in the Bill whereby a woman's sexual relations with someone other than the accused can be taken into account in the trial hearing? Why should that be the case? Why should a woman's relations with someone else be relevant in any way to an accusation of rape against a specific person?
  Mr. Straw: We are dealing here with a process of justice. We want to see justice for victims but also for defendants. Making judgments on the matter has involved a very fine balance. If we go too far to protect the victims

  393
  by banning all sorts of cross-examination or adduction of evidence, we may end up with a situation in which a jury will not convict. We may end up with exactly the opposite of that which we wish to avoid. We have sought significantly to restrict the admission of evidence about previous sexual behaviour in terms of time and in relation to other individuals. Generally speaking, the evidence that is admissible will relate to what happened at and around the time of the alleged offence. There could be circumstances in which evidence relating to the woman's conduct with other people is relevant, and admission of such evidence is not completely ruled out in the Bill, but it will be restricted.
  I am conscious that I have spoken already at some length. The issue of the reporting restrictions in the Bill understandably caused some controversy in the other place and I am sure that it will be the subject of discussion on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Bill, like the report "Speaking up for Justice", seeks to make the law on reporting restrictions more consistent so that it is less confusing and less likely to be undermined by loopholes in the legislation. The idea is that all restrictions imposed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland will now be enforceable throughout the United Kingdom and will apply to all media, including the internet.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I hope that the Home Secretary received advance notice of the precise point that I wish to raise. It relates not so much to the content of the Bill as to the inclusion of Scotland in clause 48 and the related clause 40. Given that it is unlikely that the Bill will be through the parliamentary procedure by 1 July—the point at which the transfer of powers takes place—and given that, with the exception of abortion and drugs legislation, criminal justice and procedure are entirely devolved matters, what will be the parliamentary basis after 1 July for proceeding with the Bill as it relates to Scotland?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of that question. First, the provisions create an offence in Scotland, but only in so far as that is necessary to enforce court orders made in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the hon. Lady will know, and I certainly know all too well, it is a matter of some concern that, for example, injunctions can be imposed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland but require separate action in Scotland. I do not make that as an ad hominem point; it is just that I have had some experience of the matter. It is anomalous and we are seeking to deal with it.
  I am advised that the Bill will become satisfactory law whether it receives Royal Assent after or before 1 July. I am happy to take further advice on the matter. I will ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State replies in more detail on that point. If we cannot get the best, if not the most expensive, legal advice by then, I shall write to the hon. Lady. My hon. Friend was very expensive when he was practising—high quality—and no one but he knows what a sacrifice he made in order to take the Queen's shilling.
  The courts will have a new power to impose restrictions to protect witnesses whose fear of the consequences of publicity is so great that they are unable to co-operate fully with an investigation or to give their best evidence at trial. The Bill extends the restrictions on the reporting of information likely to lead the public to identify children
  394
  who are involved in criminal offences. At present, the law can protect children in that way only once charges have been brought. Under the Bill, it is proposed that the protections will start at the point at which a criminal investigation begins.
  Those measures prompted a good deal of discussion while the Bill was in another place. Representations were received from the print and broadcasting media; their concern was that the changes proposed imposed an undue burden on them and their ability to report news effectively. We listened carefully to all that was said, and amendments have been proposed as a result.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I have a question about the general structure of clause 43. The Home Secretary states that, in his view, the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. He will know that that convention sees the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy as co-existing. Why, therefore, is the Home Secretary structuring the Bill so that the restriction on the right to freedom of expression in relation to those aged under 18 is effectively a blanket ban on reporting, rather than a ban that is in line with the convention? Such a ban would imply a set of criteria that presuppose a need to impose reporting restrictions, rather than the presumption that reporting restrictions, and the abridgement of the right of freedom of expression, are right in all circumstances.
  Mr. Straw: We are proposing that those restrictions can be lifted with parental permission. I signed a certificate on the front of the Bill stating that I believe that the provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
  Mr. Lansley: It is not necessarily true.
  Mr. Straw: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not have signed the certificate unless I had been convinced of that. If clause 43 ends up before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the mere fact that I signed a certificate will not necessarily be taken as good evidence before that court. I accept that, but we do our best; it is an important part of the process of bringing legislation before the House.
  The principle of reporting restrictions has long been accepted; it goes back at least to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. At present, there is an anomaly because those restrictions on reporting names and identities kick in only when the proceedings start, and not, for example, at the time of arrest. That is anomalous because, if the evidence against someone is extremely strong and the proceedings begin quickly, that person receives greater protection than someone against whom the evidence might not be strong and might later be dropped. Such a person might be the subject of press reporting, while someone against whom there is strong evidence will not.
  I have thought long and hard about this matter. I want to make it clear that, although we have moved a long way to meet the concerns of the print and broadcasting media, we want discussions to continue. We shall also take account of what is said on both sides of the Standing Committee, because achieving the right balance is very difficult. We need to protect children from undesirable and unnecessary publicity, and it needs to be borne in

  395
  mind that that includes children who are defendants or potential defendants as well as those who are innocent victims. At the same time, the press and other media have an important role to play both in our democracy, by holding institutions to account, and as part of the way in which we hold individuals to account for their criminal behaviour. To reinforce that, my hon. Friends and I fully backed the arrangements that were made in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to give youth courts the power, after conviction, to lift bans on reporting altogether, without the consent of parents. We have sent out a circular to that effect and discussed it with the Guild of Editors and would like to see that power used more widely. The naming of young offenders, especially those in the older age bracket—15, 16 and 17-year-olds—is a powerful weapon and it should be used. That is not in any sense inconsistent with a concern to ensure that, up until the point of conviction, those people receive some protection. However, as I said, we do not believe that the provisions of the Bill as it stands are the last word; we are open to proposals on how to achieve a better balance, and my hon. Friend the Minister is taking a keen personal interest in that.
  Justice is often portrayed as a balancing act, but it is not only about weighing various pieces of evidence so as to reach the right verdict on the defendant; it goes far wider than that. Justice matters to the whole of our community. Unless witnesses are able to give evidence at trial—and get help to enable them to give that evidence, if help is needed—crimes will go unreported, uninvestigated and untried. When offenders get to court, witnesses, victims and the whole community rely on us to take action to ensure that those offenders do not reoffend. If we cannot take that action, we run the risk of those offenders becoming career criminals, committing more and more crimes against their community. That must be the greatest injustice of all.
  With this Bill and its predecessor, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we have tried to rebalance the criminal justice system. I commend the Bill the House.
  1.56 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: This is an important Bill, notwithstanding its rather curious marriage of two distinct and unconnected areas of policy. We believe that the issues would have been dealt with better in separate Bills, but the Government chose other priorities for their legislative programme, one of which hit the buffers a day or two ago in another place. No matter—the Bill's provisions are designed to achieve worthy objectives, and we are happy to give them a broad welcome. Although we are concerned about some of the more detailed provisions, we shall not divide the House, because we believe it important that the principles that underpin the measure should have the support of the whole House. We shall endeavour to be constructive in proposing changes, and today we shall indicate the general areas of concern that we want to explore in Committee.
  When discussing youth justice, it is worth reminding ourselves that the majority of young people lead law-abiding lives and their experience of crime is as victims—of theft, bullying or assault. On occasion, they are the victims of violent assault or tragedy. I know that the Home Secretary will support my saying that, today,
  396
  we remember the many young people who, 10 years ago, lost their lives at Hillsborough while attending the FA cup semi-final. On a lighter note, I ought to invite the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, as a Blackburn Rovers supporter, he is entirely satisfied with the outcome at Villa Park last night. I certainly am not, and it is a pity that his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was not able to intervene. However, that is another matter.
  In respect of the provisions of the Bill, we agree that youth offender teams are an important development in youth justice policy and have a crucial role to play in supervising young offenders in the community. The previous Government first proposed the idea in its consultation paper, "Preventing Children Offending", which was published in March 1997. At that time, the concept of such teams related to juveniles of a younger age than those covered by the provisions in the Bill. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary, in the same spirit of co-operation that is obvious in my remarks, will acknowledge that the proposals for teams or panels to oversee the behaviour of young delinquents, so as to address early their propensity to commit offences, have been on the agenda for discussion for some time.
  We agree that it is time to act. The proposal to require youth offender teams to establish youth offender panels, to provide tailor-made programme for individual offenders, is a natural extension of the team's role. We acknowledge that, but the panels will face a stiff challenge. They will need to address the growing problems of truancy and of drug and alcohol abuse that blight the lives of many young people and lead inexorably to crime. It is vital that the contracts drawn up with young offenders address those problems. The specific references in the Bill to those areas are welcome, although we will need to ensure that the range of measures that make up the contracts is sufficiently comprehensive.
  We think that the concept of referral orders in part I is generally sound. However, it goes without saying that the execution of those ideas in practice will determine their success. The implementation of this initiative will depend largely on the quality of those appointed to the panels. We want to explore in greater detail the Government's thinking about who will be appointed to the panels and who will play a leading role.
  We are concerned, too, that the resource implications have been glossed over and not thought through fully. In a recent answer, the Minister of State confirmed that, in the last year for which figures are available—I think that it is 1996—no fewer than 37,000 young offenders were found guilty for the first time in magistrates courts. The majority of them pleaded guilty. If the Government insist—the Home Secretary reminded us of his position today—that all those offenders should automatically be made the subject of referral orders, rather a lot of panels will have to be established each year, if and when the concept is extended across the country.
  That is a big if. Our main criticism is that much of the Government's youth justice programme continues to be subject to extensive experimentation and piloting. We understand that, with any new policy initiative, it makes sense to see what works and adapt accordingly. We do not criticise that approach. However, the Government continue to make bold claims about their innovative approach to youth justice and how their policies are making a big difference to youth offending across the

  397
  country. The Government are entitled to make that claim, but we are equally entitled to say that, judging from the Government's achievements so far, this youth justice strategy has been—and continues to be—substantially oversold.
  We have a long way to go before the real difference on the ground matches the impression of concerted action on the basis of which the Government's ideas are trumpeted. How many child curfew schemes have been established? How many parenting, child safety and anti-social behaviour orders—to which I shall turn in a moment—have been made? More to the point, how many action plan orders have been made? Our point is that it will take several years for the youth justice measures in this Bill to be piloted, adapted and extended to all parts of the country. In all circumstances, we encourage Ministers to be rather more candid about how much there is still to do before the reality matches their claims.
  There are some very good ideas that, by and large, we support. Many of the more obvious successes in preventing youth offending, such as Crime Concern—the Minister and I will judge this year's Crime Concern awards shortly—resulted from initiatives taken by the previous Government. The Thames Valley experience to which the Home Secretary referred commenced under the previous Government. We are a long way from the comprehensive implementation of the Government's programme for youth justice on a national scale. Our message to Ministers is to recognise that fact. We urge them to show a great deal more commitment to delivering on the promises that they have championed to the electorate. That will be a theme of our approach to the Bill in Committee.
  We encourage the Government to adopt a less rigid and more flexible approach to referral orders. As the Home Secretary acknowledged, the Bill's provisions were amended in another place to provide flexibility to magistrates in determining when a referral is or might be appropriate. We appreciate that the amendment needs refinement. I am slightly surprised that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the first two clauses are contradictory. We accept that the amendment is not perfect but we urge the right hon. Gentleman not to use the Government's huge majority to reverse it without first listening to the arguments, some of which I shall explore now and some of which we shall certainly wish to explore in Committee.
  I remind the Home Secretary that, in establishing the arrangements for action plan orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Government provided flexibility and choice to the courts. That seems to be in sharp contrast to the mandatory nature of the proposed referral orders. Yet, in many respects, the nature of both orders is similar. I constantly refer to a very good brief on the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act. It states that an action plan order is a new community sentence
  "specifically tailored to address the cause of a child's or young person's offending behaviour."
  That is equally the purpose of the proposed referral orders. Why is there such inflexibility on referral orders? What is the real thinking behind the mandatory nature of the order? Why exclude the Crown courts from passing a referral order sentence when they can impose an action plan order? Why limit the order to first-time offenders? What is the likelihood of confusion between action plan orders and referral orders?
  398
  Would it not make better sense if action plan orders were also delivered through a youth offender panel? The key point is that the Government have failed to make out a case for why all first-time offenders pleading guilty should be referred to the youth offender team in the way that is proposed. I think that the explanation of the Government's rationale lacks credibility. It ignores the realities of the day-to-day administration of youth justice.
  We certainly agree that a properly established youth offender panel referral is in principle much to be preferred to a more general community sentence such as a community service order, a supervision order or a probation order. Reference to a youth offender panel—this is the strength of what the Government are proposing—would provide an opportunity for the young offender to have significantly more contact and support and guidance from the panel than he would, under current experience, from a supervision or probation order. However, it may not be an appropriate solution in each and every case where immediate custody is not an option.
  For example, we think that it is wrong to assume that a first-time offender, perhaps in early to mid teens, has a behavioural problem or a propensity to reoffend that needs to be addressed in a referral order. The majority might have such a problem or propensity but many will not. Not everyone will have received a final warning or reprimand. The majority may be in that position, but not all. The youth involved may have been led astray by slightly older boys, some of whom may be young adults over 18 years of age. However, having been caught, he could well be expected to mend his ways.
  It is a fact that the majority of youngsters who are caught and challenged do not reoffend. With that in mind, a heavy fine may be more appropriate in many instances. For example, if a youngster of previous good character becomes involved in a fracas late at night, that might involve older teenagers. Let us say that there is a collective charge and the youth admits to assault. Surely a fine would be less cumbersome in such a case than automatically requiring the court to refer the youngster to the youth offender team.
  Why is the use of a conditional discharge ruled out? An absolute discharge is permitted. It could mean that a court would be likely to order an absolute discharge to avoid reference to a youth offender team. The benefit of some of the conditions attached to a conditional discharge would thus be lost. We shall explore the point in Committee.
  Two of the key objectives of the referral order are the opportunities for reparation and restitution, but those may not be appropriate in every case. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, restorative justice is still in its infancy—so much so that he had to explain to the House what it meant. The experience can be difficult for some victims, as the experiments carried out elsewhere show. In such cases, a court may be better advised to use a compensation order or a reparation order.
  Tomorrow, when we debate the provisions of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, the House will be asked to agree new powers for courts to make restriction orders on football hooligans. To some degree, however, the provisions of that Bill will be discretionary. There is a reference to a duty to impose a restriction order, but that is discretionary, having regard to all the reasonable circumstances. What happens if a 16 or 17-year-old youth pleads guilty to a first offence involving assault outside a football ground?

  399
  The mood of the House and the view of the Home Secretary in supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) are that restriction orders should be imposed. If it is a first offence, it is not clear to us how such a restriction order will be imposed given that, under the Bill as the Government want it to be, not as it is now, there will simply be a reference to a youth offender team.
  All these arguments suggest that magistrates should have rather more discretion than the Government originally thought necessary when they introduced the Bill in another place and, as the Home Secretary reminded us, as is still his preference today. The rest of the Government's youth justice reforms, such as the action plan order, provide for flexibility. That is equally essential to the success of these measures. The Home Secretary said that he was always open to suggestions. In Committee, we shall explore the most appropriate way of providing for discretion.
  If the Government insist on a greater degree of certainty in the application of the sentence than is envisaged in the amendment passed in the other place, a potential solution would be to require a referral order in all cases where the court would otherwise impose a community sentence, leaving all the other options still available.
  The overall experience of other criminal justice and sentencing initiatives shows that, unless there are sound reasons, such as dealing with repeat offenders under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, rigidity and inflexibility tend to work less well and encourage a sense of injustice. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I am one of those who bear the scars of our arguments about unit fines in the Standing Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
  Mr. Straw: An old lag.
  Mr. Greenway: Indeed. That goes back a long time.
  It is important to bear in mind that such feelings of injustice could arise if automatic referral to a youth offender team comes to be seen out there in the real world as an extremely heavy-handed response to a relatively minor offence to which a youngster pleads guilty.
  We also question whether, by restricting the youth offender team referral to first-time offenders, the Government are targeting the most important group. Through the orders, we should be addressing the problem of persistence. That is the Government's main target, as we heard again today. Up to now, their youth justice policies have focused almost entirely on tackling the problems of persistent young offenders.
  At present, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, an action plan order can be imposed on a persistent offender, regardless of when he is sentenced. However, an action plan order has a life of only three months, whereas a referral order for a first-time offender can be for 12 months. An action plan order will not be delivered by a youth offender panel. We believe that it would be better if a youth offender panel delivered the contract for which both orders provide.
  Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman's point seems to be that the Government are concentrating far
  400
  too much on first-time offenders. Does he accept that all persistent young offenders were once first-time offenders who were not properly dealt with?
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Lady anticipates my next point. We are not saying that there is no case for focusing on first-time offenders. We share the Government's determination to nip in the bud early signs of criminality, but the Government's view is that all first-time offenders must be referred to the youth offender teams. That must mean that some will be referred when that is not necessary or in their interest.
  We accept that the majority should be referred, but not all. The court ought to have some discretion with regard to such referrals—for example, if the parents are supportive, a parenting order in conjunction with a heavy fine could be sufficient. The Bill rules that out.
  Ms Sally Keeble: As I understand it, the panels are for first-time offenders who plead guilty. Because of the hours during which the panels will meet, it will be much easier to involve parents. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is in favour of that?
  Mr. Greenway: Certainly. We are not saying that that is not a good idea—on the contrary. However, we are presenting to the Home Secretary a reasoned argument for discretion. Moreover, youth offender panels will not be an infinite resource. We question whether it is right to waste a panel's resources on an offender who does not need a youth offender panel referral. For a first-time offender who has pleaded guilty to a relatively minor offence, that is a heavy-handed treatment. The panel's resources could be deployed on another, more deserving case—possibly someone who has been in court before. Under the Bill, such cases are ruled out.
  Why should the experiment be limited to first-time offenders, when there is such obvious potential for including in the project repeat offenders and involving their parents, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) suggests? Until now, those people never had the opportunity of benefiting from such a scheme. It is almost as though the shutters have come down, and all those who have been in court and pleaded guilty before can never have this wonderful new sentence—only those who appear in court and plead guilty in the areas where the scheme is to be piloted, and eventually, in five or six years, nationwide. That is nonsense. If it is a good idea, let us be more enthusiastic about how we implement it.
  Mr. Dawson: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman expressing views that I used to hold. If we are to tackle youth offending, should we accept youth crime as a normal part of growing up, or should we say that, every time a young person gets into trouble with the law, perhaps after he or she has been cautioned a couple of times, that should occasion an inquiry?
  Mr. Greenway: I agree. Of course we should be saying that youth offending is not to be tolerated. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, I look forward to his support for the parts of my speech on enforcement, which I shall come to later.

  401
  I add to my argument by quoting what the Home Secretary has put in the Bill. Clause 2(3) gives him the power to alter
  "in any way the descriptions of offenders"
  for whom referral orders are available. I cannot read that to mean anything other than that, in due course, Ministers will wish to extend the scheme to repeat offenders who are showing clear signs of persistence and whom we need to deal with. Why wait a year or two to do that? Why not do it now? The extension of the referral order to other offenders will be an attractive proposition if the panels are properly focused.
  The Home Secretary will remember—we talked about it at the time—my general enthusiasm for the youth justice system in Massachusetts, which was commented on in the 1993 Home Affairs Select Committee report on juvenile offenders. It is still a good read.
  I recognise that we are a long way off the Massachusetts youth justice department system, whereby youngsters "work their way out" of prison, but it is relevant—it goes to the heart of the philosophy behind the Government's proposals. The concept of a youth justice board—a nationwide body—a nationwide network of youth offender teams and individual panels for offenders to deal with their offending behaviour through contracts, makes sense only if we anticipate moving much further in the direction of individual contracts, not just for first-time offenders who plead guilty, but for all young offenders, whether they have just committed their first criminal act, or are more persistent offenders.
  Ministers should recognise now, while we create the legislative framework for referrals and panels, the need for flexibility, and the opportunity for adaptation and extension of the experiment to repeat, as well as to first-time, offenders. Above all perhaps, they should recognise the need to avoid the confusion that will arise between action plan orders and referral orders—confusion over when each is available.
  I put it in the most simplistic terms. As the Bill is drafted, or as the Government would like it to finish in the House, a mandatory reference is required for all first-time offenders who plead guilty. There is a structure in the Bill for the Home Secretary to extend the project if he wants to. It would be better to turn the thing on its head, make the referral order available for all young offenders and deal with the implementation of the experiment through guidance to courts on how to use the referral order sentence.
  That would make much more sense. It would treat magistrates and youth courts with the respect over their discretion that they deserve. It would be a better use of the resources to be made available to the youth offender panel.
  In Committee, we will want to challenge other rigidities in the Government's plans. Why, for example, limit the scope of the sentence to guilty pleas? That provides potential for the manipulation of the court's sentence. It is a serious point; I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to it. It would be perverse if it became the norm to plead not guilty to avoid the youth offender panel. If the panel has the teeth that we think it should have, the Government will have to consider that prospect.
  Why rule out any use of the restraint of liberty? Will courts be able to justify a custodial sentence when youngsters who breach the rules are referred back to
  402
  them? I listened carefully to the Home Secretary. He said that the whole sentence range would be available to courts, but we have to bear in mind that the court originally thought that custody was inappropriate for the offence. Therefore, if youngsters breach the rules and are referred back to court, will they get a custodial sentence?
  Similarly, electronic monitoring would surely add much-needed teeth to the panel's powers of supervision and intervention. Are there no circumstances in which Ministers would envisage or countenance the use of tags or electronic monitors to ensure attendance of teenagers at school to defeat and to deter truancy, attendance at an attendance centre, or the following of a curfew to punish bad performance? Those ideas need to be explored.
  To achieve their full potential, referral orders must deliver a clear sense of certainty of consequence if contracts are breached. What will be the point of preaching zero tolerance of anti-social and criminal behaviour if the same principle does not apply in relation to sentences imposed on those who are caught and prosecuted?
  If the intention is, as I think it is, to put the fear of God into youngsters who commit crime—the point was made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)—we will need to ensure that the consequence of reoffending is certain. That threat must carry conviction. Unless youngsters are convinced that, if they breach the rules or their contract, or reoffend while under the care of the panel, retribution will be swift, the Government will not achieve their aims
  Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman referred to where the plans had been tried out. I have seen such projects tried out. They work only because young people plead guilty and can then be worked with. He suggests the sort of sledgehammer approach that he said earlier was not appropriate for a first-time offender.
  Mr. Greenway: No, I do not. If I have given that impression, I apologise. It seemed that that approach was acceptable in the action plan order that was included in the Crime and Disorder Act. The order is available even if people are convicted by the court and did not plead guilty. The principles are the same. If the young offender, however he gets through the referral order—let us discuss the Government's plan—pleads guilty, is referred to the panel, agrees a contract and then breaches it, what do we do with him? What attitude do we instil in his mind as to what to expect if he breaches the contract that he willingly embraced and entered into?
  Many community sentences fail; those of us who follow youth justice know that. Home Office figures show that, on a good day, the failure rate of supervision orders for 10 to 17-year-olds is 80 per cent. They fail because there is inadequate supervision and because breaches are not treated firmly and harshly enough. That was the clear conclusion of the Home Affairs Select Committee report six years ago and in the latest report, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) was involved. Therefore, things have not changed.
  The 1993 report recommended that breaches should result in a fresh court appearance and a custodial sentence—there was all-party agreement. We should build in the safeguards needed to ensure that the second chance does not become the norm. Word would soon get round if a second offence or breach of contract did not lead to punishment. That is why cautions were such a disaster.

  403
  However, that does not mean an unnecessarily harsh crackdown—a concern raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North. It would affect only those who breached the conditions. Those asked to serve on youth offender panels will have an opportunity to influence for good the lives of the youngsters placed in their care. That is one reason why I am so enthusiastic about the panels. We shall want to explore in Committee their membership, as well as the need for regular contact. Significantly more contact than is common under a typical probation or supervision order will be essential. We also want to talk about the many disciplines from which members of the panel may be drawn, including the probation service, youth workers, social workers, police officers, magistrates and other volunteers. Which will be the dominant influence? That could have a marked bearing on outcomes.
  There is considerable potential in the youth justice elements of the Bill, but their success depends on a more determined, more focused and more flexible approach than is apparent from the measures that have been set out. The all-too-obvious failings over enforcement that have so disastrously characterised probation and community service orders in recent years must be avoided. Programmes must be rigorously researched and evaluated from the outset, or there will be a repetition of failure. The shortcomings that are experienced must not be kept hidden or tolerated to protect failed ideologies or professional status.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking will speak at the end of the debate about the clauses that deal with evidence. There is general agreement that special measures are justified for the giving of evidence by vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. However, as the Home Secretary acknowledged, the proposals raise some issues of principle and we shall want to ensure in Committee that the right balance has been struck between the interests of witnesses and the interests of the accused. For example, there is some concern about the use of pre-recorded evidence, to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred.
  As the Home Secretary knows, at the election, both the Conservative and the Labour parties promised action to protect rape victims from extensive cross-examination in court by their alleged attackers. He will also recall that we tried to press the argument during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was involved in that. The Home Secretary rightly drew attention to the provisions on the questioning of child witnesses in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which I have referred to in relation to another issue.
  We agree that the issues are complex and some of the arguments are finely balanced. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who has greater experience of such matters, will seek to explore whether it is right to rule out any questioning by the accused or whether there may be circumstances in which the leave of the court may be sought. This is not a partisan point. The Opposition have perhaps an even greater duty than the Government to ensure that the Bill is far reaching and properly addresses the concerns of judges and lawyers on how best to serve the interests of justice.
  404
  The other place debated at some length the provisions in chapter III of part II for the protection of complainants in proceedings on sexual offences. The need to prevent spurious references to the previous sexual history of rape victims could not be clearer. The Home Secretary referred to the cases of Edwards and Brown. Some years ago, when I was sitting somewhere near where the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) is now sitting, I urged my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to change the rules on disclosure. I referred to the case of a teenage girl who was subjected to an appalling rape ordeal. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned the prosecution of five young men on charges of gang rape in a west London multi-storey car park because the girl had been raped before and they understandably felt that it would be unreasonable to subject her to cross-examination in court about her previous experience, which the law would have allowed. The Bill will rightly prohibit such humiliating questioning of rape victims.
  The debate in the other place resulted in a change to the wording of clause 40(3)(b)(ii). The change would allow reference to be made to the previous behaviour of the complainant in circumstances similar to those surrounding the case that I have mentioned. I shall not labour the point now, but I ask the Minister to read the wording of the redrafted sub-paragraph and the wording of the explanatory notes, because the two are not the same. There is significant doubt about what the sub-paragraph is supposed to mean. The explanatory notes say on page 25:
  "The issue is whether the complainant consented and the evidence or questioning relates to behaviour that is extremely similar to the defence's version of the complainant's behaviour at the time of the alleged offence and cannot reasonable be explained as a coincidence."
  That does not mean the same as the wording of the amended sub-paragraph. We can explore that later. It shows the importance of examining the words very carefully. If we get the meaning wrong and the legislation is interpreted differently by the courts, we could well find that what Parliament thought that it intended is not reflected in the Bill.
  Ms Keeble: When the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) deals with the issue later, perhaps he will take on board the point that the proposals are strongly supported by male rape victims. I have had several letters on the subject from constituents. The example that the hon. Gentleman gave involved a woman, as most rape cases do, but we should also consider male rape victims.
  Mr. Greenway: I endorse what the hon. Lady has said.
  We also welcome the changes made in the other place to the proposals on reporting restrictions for offences committed against persons under 18. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) intervened on the Home Secretary to point out that not everyone is satisfied. The Guild of Editors thinks that the clauses need further attention. We anticipate constructive dialogue in Committee as we test whether the changes meet what is required.
  The Bill provides many important opportunities to improve our criminal justice system and the provision of youth justice. We have an opportunity to ensure that vulnerable witnesses can give evidence free from fear, distress and intimidation in a manner that properly

  405
  recognises their needs as child witnesses or any needs arising from any disability that they may have. We have an opportunity to prevent the victims of rape and serious sexual assault from having to relive their ordeal in court because of unnecessarily intrusive questioning by their assailant or by having slurs cast on their character without proper justification. We have an opportunity to protect young people who are victims of serious crime from over-intrusive or sensational press reporting of their ordeal. We have the opportunity to create a new approach to tackling the problems of young offenders. However, to make a real difference, the Government must show that they are prepared to make the commitment and put in the resources that are vital to the success of a dedicated crusade against youth crime. We have yet to be convinced of that commitment.
  2.40 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak—especially so early—in the debate, and particularly to address some of the issues concerning children and young people. The Bill is extremely important and worthy, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office should be proud of it. I am also pleased to hear that it will attract widespread support, which is right and proper.
  There are many issues to discuss, and the Bill will provide many opportunities to air them. Moreover, the subsequent Act will provide opportunities for piloting projects, to determine how the initiatives envisaged in the Bill work in practice. Those are some of the Bill's positive elements in dealing with a very difficult aspect of life.
  Some of the Bill's provisions are long overdue. Others of its provisions—such as that on restorative justice for young people, developing ways in which they might make amends that go far beyond mere punishment—are novel and hopeful. They may just give us a profoundly better way of reducing offending by young people, while assisting young people's positive reintegration into their own community.
  I worked in youth justice throughout the 1980s. Today, I heard Opposition Members, perhaps naturally, claim that all the Bill's good provisions were their idea. Although they would probably also claim that they had a good youth justice system in the 1980s, it did not seem like that from my perspective then. The policy framework within which we had to operate was a shambles.
  I was trained in working with young people, at Lancaster university's centre for youth crime and community, explicitly to deal with offending behaviour, to manage youth justice systems and to develop non-custodial disposals—alternatives to custody. In 1983 and 1986, I established and managed two radical projects on alternatives to custody in Lancashire, and am still proud of the fact that we had some immediate success. In 1987 and most of 1988, no young people in the Lancaster and Wyre district were sent into custody, and we reduced the very serious offending of some extremely persistent young offenders.
  I have also dealt with the issue of breach, and therefore accede to many of the statements made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). Although breach was sometimes a very difficult matter to deal with within the culture of a social services department, it is an essential element of a radical community-based service.
  406
  Although it is an aside, I really should say that I am completely opposed to use of Home Office custody for children—which is not to denigrate the efforts of excellent and worthy people working with young people in prisons. It should be a fundamental principle that the very small proportion of young people who are a danger to others or to themselves should go to properly appointed, high-quality, small-scale and child-centred secure units operated entirely within the principles of the Children Act 1989. Recent scandals, such as those at Medway and Feltham, will recur until we get the matter right. I very much hope that part I will prove eventually to have been a very big step in the right direction.
  Although we did some excellent work and made some real progress in youth justice work—that experience should never be discounted—we did not get very many things right. We did little to reduce youth crime overall. We did virtually nothing to reduce the serious impact of offending on individuals and entire communities. As the hon. Member for Ryedale said, we deliberately relied on other sentences—cautioning, cautioning-plus, conditional discharge, attendance centres, supervision orders, community service and all the rest of it—thereby causing incoherence in the system, difficulty in targeting interventions, and real difficulty in ensuring that young people got the same explicit, positive message.
  We relied on those sentences partly because we knew that social work interventions do not always work, and certainly do not always work immediately. We were also very sceptical of the youth justice system, thinking it important to include in sentencing tariffs which might result in custody and recidivism as many non-custodial options as possible. Eventually, worthy aims led us into a rarefied form of social work that was sometimes out of touch with the community, wherein problems often arose.
  Too often, family problems and behaviour patterns were compounded and entrenched before considerable resources and expertise were directed towards them. That is one of the real reasons why, as I said, I have changed my mind about the way we should operate youth justice. We have to address the practical issues in trying to deal with some of the problems that the previous system allowed to become very difficult and entrenched.
  The system proposed in the Bill is greatly different from, and potentially so much better than, the previous one. It is founded upon the welcome innovation of youth offending teams—joined-up youth justice—that were pioneered partly by my colleagues in Lancaster after I worked there. The Bill explicitly aims to prevent offending by children and young people. It will introduce restorative justice for young people, properly facing them with the consequences of their behaviour, and then offering them a way back into the community. The new approach is fundamentally different from the old one.
  With the greatest respect to the other place and to the hon. Member for Ryedale, I think that they missed the point on referral orders—which will offer a very early opportunity to begin an inquiry, and to establish, right from the start, that offending by young people is wrong, that it should not be tolerated, and that we should face it with all the resources at our disposal. In dealing with youth offending, we should seek imaginative solutions, and bring together not only all the statutory agencies but the whole community. It is essential that they be offered to the large majority of young people who will be

  407
  appearing in court for the first time and pleading guilty, who will not be getting an absolute discharge and who will not be going into custody.
  Soon after offending, young people will face a considerable intervention in their lives: a concerted investigation involving parents and other significant adults. Under the programme, young people will be challenged to make reparation to victims; to face the consequences of their actions; to work for the community; to break patterns of behaviour or friendship; to establish new patterns of behaviour or attendance; and to confront sometimes serious problems.
  I have done some of that work before, although not all of it, and not at such an early and potentially significant stage. There has not been the opportunity to bring quite so many measures together in such explicit statutory guidance to young people. That is a powerful tool for working with young people. The Home Secretary is right to pilot the order and wise to allow himself the possibility of coming back to extend its range to other groups of young offenders. I hope that the Home Secretary will not be too quick to do the latter because there are major resource implications. A considerable proportion of the young offending population might be eligible for the programme. If experience in Scotland and New Zealand is anything to go by, the vast majority of those young people eventually will be available for such disposal.
  The statutory attendance of at least one parent—and hopefully both—at the youth offending panel is crucial. It is vital that parents play their essential part in understanding their young person's criminal behaviour, dealing with it and being helped to deal with it. As I have suggested, I am concerned that clause 5 allows a loophole whereby courts might not require the parents of looked-after children to attend the youth offending panel that is inquiring into the criminal behaviour of their child.
  Under the Children Act, at the very least, the mother retains parental responsibility, even if her child is subject to a care order. In reality, the vast majority of looked-after children are merely accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act at parental request and can be discharged from care at a moment's notice. Crucial Children Act concepts of parental responsibility and of local authorities having to work in partnership with parents are relevant here.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will look at the issues again to ensure that, where a child is looked after, both the parent and the representative of the local authority must attend the youth offending panel. The last parents who should be given an excuse not to come to the panel are parents who are having such great difficulty managing their children's behaviour that the children are looked after.
  I have seen the suicide attempts of young people who have endured years of abuse, who have had their concepts of love and trust cruelly confused and undermined, who have found the courage eventually to disclose their plight to some adult who will listen, who have had their families reject them, their homes broken up and their education disrupted—only to find that the case collapsed when it came to court because of the often proper concern of adults that those children were too vulnerable to take on the experience of court.
  408
  There was concern that children would not be able to withstand the ordeal of living it all again in court in front of the person who abused them. I have seen the anger and despair of young people who know and regularly re-live every second of their abuse, yet who are made to feel as if they are disbelieved and as if they were responsible for what had been done to them. They are made to feel as if they contributed to their abuse and that they will be denied justice. They are made to feel utterly worthless and that no one cares, and that they might as well continue to put up with the perpetrator having their way with them.
  I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for proposing a Bill that defines children under 17 as eligible for assistance. The Bill proposes special measures on a statutory basis, such as screens; allowing a video interview to be shown as the witness's evidence; allowing a witness to give evidence from outside the court by a television link; clearing members of the press and public from the court so that evidence can be given in private; not wearing wigs and gowns; allowing a witness to be cross-examined on video before trial; allowing an approved intermediary to help a witness communicate; and allowing a witness to use communication aids. Those are vital measures.
  The bones and the thrust of the Bill are excellent. It is sad that a great deal of the legislation could and should have been carried out in the wake of the Piggott report of 10 years ago, but the Government are showing themselves to be powerful protectors of children. I utterly support them in that.
  2.57 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It is always helpful to have hon. Members taking part in our debates who have recent practical experience of working in the areas concerned, and not just lawyers. [Interruption.] I hesitate to upset the Minister of State—who is a lawyer—before he replies to the debate.
  Although the Bill has some points of controversy in it, its aims, purposes and philosophy are fully supported by my party and very much in line with what we have sought to do and with what we put before the electorate at the general election.
  The first part of the Bill aims to create a more coherent and effective youth justice system. The second part aims to provide greater protection to witnesses and victims during court proceedings. Both those areas—as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said—have been neglected in recent years, and reform is very much needed.
  The first part of the Bill proposes a new sentence for young people convicted for the first time; that is, referral to a youth offender panel. The panel will then agree a contract with the young offender which will be based on the principles of restorative justice. The meeting between the panel and the young offender will seek to involve the parents and, where agreed, the victim.
  It has been Liberal Democrat policy for some time that the youth justice system in England and Wales should be reformed by building on the best practice of the Scottish hearings system, and on other overseas experience of restorative and hearings-based justice. We welcome, therefore, that part of the Bill.
  We should be clear that this is not simply creating a new sentence for young offenders, but that it is the first step towards a new system of youth justice; a system that

  409
  seeks to confront more effectively young offenders with the consequences of their actions, while providing a more comprehensive response to their offending to stop them reoffending in future. The measure is the first step in that direction.
  The evidence available suggests that a restorative approach improves the satisfaction of victims with the justice system. Despite the obvious difficulties for victims in coping with participating in a restorative system, the evidence that we have so far suggests that it is so much more satisfying to a victim than the traditional court system tends to be that, for many victims, it overcomes the initial apprehension that they might have about coming face to face with someone who committed the offence against them. Too often, victims feel ignored by proceedings in the courts. This system allows much a greater role and consideration of the victim's perspective.
  Reoffending rates for young offenders are extremely high. The Audit Commission and others have reported how the youth justice system has stagnated, and I hope that the new approach will breathe some life into youth justice.
  Too little is done to provide an effective response to young offenders that will address the causes of their behaviour, which is one of the elements of the contract. That is a key advantage that the Scottish hearings system has over the youth justice system in England and Wales, as I have seen for myself.
  The Government have decided to focus their new approach on first-time offenders whose offences are not serious enough to make them eligible for a custodial sentence. We accept that there is merit in carefully and gradually introducing such an approach, but we very much hope that it will not be the end of the process. I hope that, on the evidence of success, the Government will be ready to extend the scope of those eligible for referral to a youth justice panel. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to do that and the intention is clearly that that power should be used.
  My noble Friends referred to the make-up of youth offender panels and the question of discretion, which was the subject of a successful amendment in another place. We support the new referral order and the creation of youth offender panels and we want to ensure that they are widely used by the courts. We have always wanted to avoid the Government's being over-prescriptive towards the courts, so we are bound to have some sympathy with a power to exercise discretion.
  The Bill may have defined too tightly who is eligible for a referral order, and seeks to impose a mandatory sentence, in effect, when that eligibility is established. We should look a little more carefully at those provisions.
  Part II is designed to give greater protection to complainants and witnesses during court proceedings, thereby encouraging and enabling witnesses to give evidence that may lead to convictions. That is likely to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, by making it less traumatic for individuals to help to bring the guilty to justice. We support the raw thrust of that part of the Bill, which correctly identifies an area that is in need of reform. Victims and witnesses are too often neglected and too little thought is given to their role in the criminal justice system.
  Rape has been identified for some time as an area in which conviction rates have plummeted, but we should not forget that conviction rates in general have been
  410
  falling over the past 15 years. At a time when recorded crime was rising year after year, not only conviction rates but the total number of convictions fell. Lord Warner referred to the worryingly low number of convictions for child abuse and other offences involving children.
  One aspect of that downward trend may be the unease felt by many about giving evidence in criminal proceedings. It is bad enough to have gone through the trauma of the offence itself, and to submit oneself to legal proceedings that are traumatic in a different way is a pretty fearsome challenge for someone who has already had a harrowing experience.
  It is important fully to maintain defendants' rights, but it should be made as comfortable as possible for complainants and witnesses to give evidence. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done research that identifies the often traumatic nature of court proceedings for young children.
  Chapter II of part II is designed to protect children and complainants in certain sexual offence trials from the traumatic experience of cross-examination by defendants in person. That provision is clearly directly inspired by the controversy that followed two rape cases in which individuals were subjected to prolonged and distressing cross-examination by—as it was proved—their attackers: the Milton Brown and Ralston Edwards cases.
  In one case, the cross-examination went on for days, with the defendant wearing the clothes that he wore in the original attack.
  Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the second of the two cases that he mentioned went to appeal and that the Court of Appeal made it very plain that the trial judge has robust powers to prevent the humiliation and intimidation of the complainant by the defendant, and that those powers should be exercised?
  Mr. Beith: That was indeed the background to the sentence that I was about to utter when the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened. I was about to say that, although there has been progress in the courts since the two cases to which I referred, the fact remains that they have left a legacy of anxiety and fear among potential complainants about how they may be treated. It will take more than the advice from the Court of Appeal to overcome that, which is why the Government are right to legislate on the matter.
  We concluded in our policy paper that the reform could be undertaken without jeopardising defendants' rights in any significant way or breaching the European convention. Obviously, the Government have reached the same conclusion. The important point is that defendants should retain the right to use cross-examination but must use legal representation if they want to exercise that option.
  We concluded that the circumstances in which the defence in a sexual offence trial may use evidence of the complainant's sexual history need to be reformed. That is also the Government's purpose in chapter III. We welcome their aim of minimising the use of such evidence. The perception that rape victims will be subjected to a barrage of personal questions clearly deters individuals from seeking justice and from contemplating a trial.

  411
  In roughly half of rape cases permission is sought to bring in evidence of sexual history, and in 75 per cent. of those cases that permission is given. The law should be reformed so that such evidence is used only when it is absolutely relevant to the case.
  Ms Drown: In what sort of cases does the right hon. Gentleman think that such evidence would be relevant?
  Mr. Beith: One such possibility is specifically covered in the Bill. The immediate sexual history of the complainant in relation to the defendant could have some relevance—the Bill specifies a 24-hour limitation—when the issue at stake is whether the defendant could have had a reasonable belief in consent. It is a most difficult and contentious area, but we cannot exclude it wholly from consideration in a trial. If we did, as the Home Secretary said, we would risk making juries unwilling to convict, as it would be urged on them in the proceedings that they had not been able to consider that aspect.
  It is arguable, although more questionable, that, if persistent rape accusations had been made by the complainant in comparable circumstances, all of which had been disproved, that might have a bearing on the case. The hon. Lady should be wary of attacking her friends on this issue, because it is certainly our view that there should be reform in the legislation to minimise the use of sexual history, which is so rarely relevant, in rape cases.
  There could be a quid pro quo, so that, when evidence of the complainant's sexual history was allowed, the prosecution should be allowed to adduce evidence of the defendant's. That should certainly deter the unscrupulous use of sexual history by the defence in an attempt to excite hostility to the complainant among the jury. We will consider the Government's proposals during our further proceedings and we may table amendments to explore such possibilities.
  We also want the Government to consider anonymity. Complainants in rape cases rightly have anonymity, which is critical in limiting intrusion into the alleged victim's life and in encouraging the reporting of crime. Consideration should also be given to granting anonymity to the defendant, as used to happen. The anonymity of the alleged victim can be completely undermined when the defendant is identified.
  Because of the extremely grave social stigma of such cases, it can be argued that individuals should retain their anonymity while no case is proven. Reputations can be ruined merely by allegations, even when there is subsequent acquittal. Revelations about admitted sexual relations with the complainant may be damaging in themselves and would never have been made public but for the charge of which the defendant is acquitted. Even when the whole story is found to be false, people suffer from the claim that there is no smoke without fire. We have all heard that statement made, often in very unjust and inappropriate circumstances.
  This is not a theoretical argument. Some individuals have committed or attempted suicide because of reports of the charges that have been made. We may never know whether they were innocent or guilty, but the knowledge that that pressure is there should be a warning to us.
  412
  We therefore want the Government to consider further the idea of anonymity for the defendant unless and until a conviction is obtained.
  Another aspect of the Bill that has excited controversy and been referred to by everyone who has spoken in the debate is the extension of reporting restrictions. Part II, chapter IV extends those restrictions with the aim of giving clearer protection to certain witnesses. Clause 43 extends current restrictions on the identification of alleged child and juvenile offenders and witnesses, and is to be applied before court proceedings start.
  There has been some concern about that in the media. We understand and accept the aim of the clause, and recognise the fact that the Government have already attempted to tighten the provisions, but some criticisms are still being made and it is important that we get the rules right.
  The most extreme example of the difficulties into which the media could be led is that of Dunblane. Once a school has been named, the anonymity of a child is at risk. Once that has happened, when a serious criminal offence is widely known to have taken place, it produces absurd stories in which the media can say only that something happened somewhere in Scotland. The way in which the media are expected to behave then enters a world of complete unreality.
  The Government will have to consider carefully whether the provisions might have been drawn too widely. The Minister in another place gave an undertaking that the Government would be ready to consider any amendment consistent with the theme and philosophy of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw indicated assent.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng)indicated assent.
  Mr. Beith: There is a clear indication from the Government Front Bench that that is still so—and we shall certainly want to consider the provisions with care.
  However, having expressed those qualifications, I strongly welcome the Bill and we enthusiastically support it.
  3.11 pm
  Caroline Flint: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, as the Bill is of enormous relevance to my constituents, especially young people. I should declare an interest at the outset as an adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales.
  My good friend the Secretary of State—I see that my right hon. Friend is just leaving the Chamber; goodbye. My right hon. Friend and other Ministers will be aware that the witness protection measures in the Bill were widely welcomed by the Police Federation annual conference, and that reflects the broad and sympathetic consensus in support of the Bill.
  I shall focus on youth offending. During the short time that I have represented Don Valley, I have sought to get to know the work of the local police, the magistrates and the three prisons in my constituency, not least the Hatfield young offenders institution.
  My first visit to a prison was to attend a lifers day, for 18 to 21-year-olds who had received a life sentence. It was an annual opportunity for their families to come to

  413
  an open day and talk with them, and the officers and other staff at the prison, about the regime and the young men's educational and vocational opportunities. I felt that it was a positive day, but 1 also came away feeling taken aback by the enormity of what had happened to those young men's lives.
  Without generalising too much, I have to say that I am sure that, if I had looked deeply into the history of those young men and their involvement in crime, I could have seen the pattern that led to the violent episode that resulted in the life sentence. I hope that the work that the Government are doing to tackle early offending—the offending that often takes place in groups, and leads to violence later—will be effective, so that, in future, if I continue to represent Don Valley, I shall have to attend fewer such days.
  Each of the bodies that I have mentioned has a contribution to make in curbing youth crime, and I hope that I will be able to illustrate that fact. I agree with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway)—he has also left the Chamber; I do not know whether that has anything to do with my speech. He talked about the positive contribution that most young people in our islands make. It is important for us to illuminate that fact and talk about it, because debates about young people today tend to dwell on the negative. We should talk often about what young people do that is right, rather than what they do wrong.
  In my experience—I am sure that every other hon. Member will agree—most young people in our constituencies are law abiding and see themselves more as victims of crime, who are sometimes intimidated out of using the services that are there for them. For example, they may not be able to go to the playgrounds, youth clubs or other places that they want to go to because a small minority intimidate them and prevent them from using the services.
  When I held a surgery for children aged from 10 to 17 last year, it was interesting to hear how strong their views on law and order were, and what they would like the Government to do. That included raising to 18 the legal age for buying spray paints, because they were worried about vandalism. They also all felt that there should be compulsory identity cards. I pointed out the concerns that some people would have about that prospect, but their passion and their concern stemmed from their perception that their community was being ruined. They were also upset about being lumped together with those who caused the trouble. That is why they wanted to resort to such strict measures to tackle the problem.
  Mine is a traditional Labour constituency. I do not know whether young people there would describe themselves as old Labour or new Labour, but they would certainly describe themselves as good citizens who want to try to make their community work. There are many talented, ambitious young people in Don Valley who make a useful contribution.
  Doncaster boasts one of the highest proportions of children of school age who play football. We have a thriving voluntary sports sector and, like many former coal-mining communities, where brass bands were once commonplace, children are encouraged to learn an instrument at an early age, to take part in out-of-school activities and to join orchestras. Many schools in my constituency pride themselves on their sporting
  414
  achievements, and on producing talented and rounded young people with real choices ahead of them. They can develop all those pursuits during their school lives and continue them into their adult lives.
  I am pleased to share with the House the way in which the positive work of young people in my constituency is both celebrated and encouraged by the South Yorkshire police. I shall give two examples. When we debate how to tackle youth offending, it is important to show how the police can organise positive activities for young people.
  First, there is the South Yorkshire police's Lifestyle project, which is run over the summer months. It encourages groups of young people, with an adult mentor, to establish a community programme that they organise and raise funds for themselves. At the end, there are prizes to celebrate their achievements.
  Later this year, there will be Operation Cypriot, organised by Doncaster's B district police services. It centres round a youth convention being held in Rossington in my constituency, where young people will be invited to meet all the youth organisations—those involved with everything from roller hockey to chess clubs and dancing classes. All the children will receive a questionnaire about their activities and interests, asking how they would like to spend their leisure time and what facilities they would like.
  To build on that initiative, the police are also seeking funding for a space for those young people. I understand that people are talking about a giant tent structure—that reminds me of the millennium dome. It would be a place where kids could hang out, relax and chat away from their parents—all young people want that opportunity—without causing a nuisance or having to spend lots of money.
  It is in the context of wanting to see young people enjoy life, to prosper and to move on into adult life with confidence and real opportunities, that the Government, and certainly my hon. Friends and myself, are determined to try to stop youth crime. During the Tory years, some people said that young people committed crime because they had no hope or opportunity—as if that somehow partially explained or justified petty crime.
  Lack of opportunities has something to do with the problem, but that is not a satisfactory excuse, not least because many children move from vandalism to theft and burglary at an early age. It is not uncommon to find children of 10, 11 or 12 who are practised burglars. We see those young people, who are often no more than children, making wrong choices that may mar their chances in life and leave them excluded from secure employment, stable relationships and the love and security that we all seek. That is why it is necessary, indeed essential, to divert children from anti-social and criminal behaviour at the earliest possible opportunity.
  I am pleased to report favourably on the approach of the Rossington police to young people. The constables draw up a profile of the estates that they will patrol—a beat profile. They identify the schools, pubs and places in which children and young people congregate to cause a nuisance. Those areas are targeted for attention and incorporated in a clear strategy to tackle anti-social behaviour.
  The previous Home Secretary talked about "walking with purpose", but the approach of the Rossington police is more policing with purpose—the directional policing

  415
  recommended by the Audit Commission. The use of local intelligence to anticipate problems, intervene and act strategically provides effective deterrence and value for money from my local police service. Using probationers from the tutor unit and special constables, the service mounts mobile operations targeting possible trouble spots, most recently in Wadworth and Edlington in my constituency, where groups of children cause a nuisance and are often in possession of alcohol.
  The targeting of those groups serves to separate the followers from the hard core. Rossington police are keen to encourage parents to take greater responsibility for knowing the whereabouts of their children, and they have a policy of taking children home or writing to their parents about any activities that are anti-social. The letters that the police write to parents will soon be reinforced by overt video recording, so that parents can view the interaction between the young people and the police. That strategy is very much in line with the Government policy of nipping youth offending in the bud. Zero tolerance it may not be, but effective deterrence it certainly is.
  The measures in the Bill will complement the establishment of the youth offending teams required by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In tackling young people with problems that lead them into crime, each agency can focus on how its work can address those young people's problems, whether it be the education service addressing truancy and disaffection; the social services addressing problems in families; the health authority if young people have drug or psychological problems; and the police if the young people have already been involved in causing nuisance or petty crime.
  Mr. John Bercow: Much of what the hon. Lady says is unexceptionable and will be endorsed by Conservative Members, but why is it justifiable for the Bill to circumscribe the power of magistrates and to render compulsory the referral of under 18-year-old first offenders to youth offender panels? Surely the judgment about whether a referral should take place should be a matter for the discretion of experienced magistrates, not the legislative fiat of this House.
  Caroline Flint: I can comment only on the picture at the local level in my constituency. I visited the magistrates court the other week with my hon. Friend the Minister, and partnerships are already being created to work on fast-tracking cases and to develop the youth offending team. The magistrates see that as an opportunity to work with other agencies to ensure that the process is inclusive. My local magistrates welcome the Bill and see it as an opportunity, not a threat.
  The establishment of the youth offending team allows agencies to see the whole picture and not just their aspect of it. The Doncaster youth offending team has 23 full-time staff, representing each of the agencies. They are located in one building and will begin their work in October, some six months ahead of the Government's required date. That blending of skills and expertise—including the courts, social services, police and schools—is a true partnership approach and is the way for the future. The traditional hierarchies, inter-agency rivalries and competing cultures must be replaced by learning and co-operation.
  416
  The new approach is also about value for money. There is no point in trying to re-invent the wheel by working separately instead of taking an agreed approach, and that point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). The role of Government has been decisive. It is not about meddling or creating bureaucracy, but about adding focus and strategy to ensure that resources are directed at specific social priorities. Government at its best is about rejuvenating the role of the public services working with young offenders, and the new approach will inspire innovation and good practice.
  I mentioned earlier the fast-track measures that we are taking in Doncaster for adults and young offenders who plead guilty to minor offences. We are not a pilot area and the scheme has worked only because of the collaboration between the magistrates, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. My hon. Friend the Minister visited the magistrates court with me last week and we saw in action a turnaround of 48 hours, which does not allow young people to go out and commit other offences while they wait for their case to be considered. The scheme involves as few as six pieces of paper, which any police officer will welcome as reducing the amount of paperwork and the amount of time spent waiting around in court.
  More importantly still, in the future, quick referrals will be able to be made to the youth panel to initiate a programme of action to tackle young people's offending. The Bill is a further step towards making such initiatives work and ensuring that they are holistic, solid and substantial. It is not a soft option to place people before a panel of specialists who can consider all aspects of offenders' lives, including their schooling, behaviour and family conditions. The programmes that the young people must follow will not be an easy option either.
  Too often, young people go through the system and are given fines that they cannot pay. That is not a good use of our justice procedures or our time. A programme of activity, supervision, counselling and community service will meet the young people's needs and, as has been mentioned, satisfy many victims who do not feel that the justice system serves them. The new approach is about confronting young offenders with the consequences of their offending and reintegrating them into their neighbourhoods. I hope that it will be a valuable step towards halting the pattern of offending.
  The team approach should promote good practice and widen the experience and options available. For example, Doncaster magistrates and police have developed a presentation for young offenders on the verge of a custodial sentence. The presentation is given by prison officers and police officers, and is known as "Prison? Me? No way!" It demonstrates the handcuffs that are used when offenders are marched from court to prison, and describes the routine of prison life and the risks to personal safety in prison. It involves taking the young offenders' fingerprints and taking them to the holding cells so that they feel what it is like to be locked up. The strategy is to lay bare the experience of being processed and detained. It underlines the gravity of their situation and is designed to jolt them into modifying their behaviour before the demonstration becomes a reality.
  I said earlier that I have three prisons in my constituency. I have seen the stark reality of prison life for young men serving life sentences and for young men

  417
  serving their first custodial sentence in an open establishment. I recommend to every young person that they avoid that path at all costs. However, I have seen how Hatfield young offenders institution provides a service that reintegrates young people into the community. I would happily nominate the institution for a charter mark, because it is not just good, but an outstanding example of how to discipline, educate and rehabilitate young offenders. It is an open institution and, as one inmate described it to me, the rules are the bars. Each inmate holds the key to their cell, and violence and bullying are rare. If one asks any inmate to whom they would turn if they had a problem, the answer is any member of staff. The staff are caring and positive and exactly what we should expect from our Prison Service.
  The challenge is far from simple. I asked the governor at Hatfield how many of the young men there were fathers and he said that the majority were. Those young men range in age from 18 to 21. If we do not tackle the issue of offending, we will affect not only those individuals, but the families that they create. Hatfield has taken a positive approach to that problem by operating parenting programmes to try to make a connection between the inmates, their role as fathers, and their children and partners or wives. That approach gives the inmates valuable skills to improve their chances of succeeding where they may have failed before. Places such as Hatfield have something to offer the youth offending teams and the youth referral procedure. They are at the sharp and most extreme end of our justice system, having to remotivate and re-engage such young men into the community. I hope that their experiences can be shared with all who seek to motivate those whose early disaffection leads them into petty crime.
  I welcome the Bill, which is an important step forward. I hope that all will agree that we want to reduce the number of young people in custody but, to do so, we must start early, with meaning and purpose. The Bill is one part of the jigsaw that allows that to happen.
  3.30 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I declare an interest as a criminal lawyer of some 23 years' standing, working as a solicitor and a barrister.
  The Bill deals with some substantial and weighty areas of policy and criminal practice. This being a Second Reading debate, I shall confine myself to some snapshots of certain areas that cause me concern.
  The first principle that one should enunciate in any justice system is that there should be a careful balance between the rights of witnesses and the rights of defendants. We must carefully guard against prejudicing the right of every individual to a fair, open and public trial. Equally, we must be mindful of the rights accorded to witnesses who, in effect, are also bona fide consumers of the criminal justice system that is available to us all.
  Therefore, there is a genuine and widely held view that some of the Bill's provisions might undermine the right to a fair public trial. Despite the Home Secretary's certificate on the face of the Bill that, in his view, it accords with the convention on human rights, there are some problems that I hope that we shall be able to investigate further, possibly in Committee.
  In opening the debate, the Home Secretary generously said that the Bill is not perfect and that any reasonable suggestion will be listened to carefully in due course.
  418
  I respect him for saying that and I hope that that is the way in which my comments will be viewed by all in the Chamber.
  I am sure that the Bill has many good points, but I honestly and sincerely believe that, in some areas, it comes close to breaching article 6 of the convention incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998. In particular, article 6.1 states:
  "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice."
  Furthermore, article 6.3(d) states that a defendant has a right
  "to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him".
  That article is highly pertinent to major parts of the Bill.

  I referred earlier in an intervention to clause 27, which advocates video recording of evidence in chief—that is pre-recordings. There are some safeguards in the Bill, but the clause appears to fly in the face of article 6. One has to wonder why the current common practice of live video link, which is prevalent in child cases in criminal courts, cannot be extended to this area in an effort, rightly, to minimise the trauma for witnesses.
  Typically, in any child case nowadays in a criminal trial, the child will not be in the court. The evidence will be fed through a video link to the jury, judge and counsel. I see no reason why that cannot be applied in this instance. It ensures that the witness is outside the actual forum, but at the same time it is a live version of evidence which must always be preferred to any form of recording.
  Mr. Hogg: It is not so much that it is live which means that it is preferable, but that it takes place after the material issues have been clarified in the course of the trial then taking place.
  Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman made that point earlier, and he is right. For cross-examination to take place before a case is embarked on in the court process is rather unusual and unworkable. I defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's greater experience in this area, and I agree with him.
  Ms Beverley Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that, in cases in which a victim has allegedly been subjected to a traumatic violation, whether a child or an adult, it can be of benefit in enhancing the quality of such evidence for it to be recorded as soon as possible after the event, and that that is a positive attribute of video recording in such cases?
  Mr. Llwyd: I hear what the hon. Lady says, and that also happens in child cases in criminal courts; she makes a valid point, but I was referring to the cross-examination of witnesses. However, I take her point and readily accept what she says.

  419
  It is important to note that one does not hear complaints about the way in which the system works in child cases, and they are often the most traumatic form of case, particularly when there has been sexual abuse and so on. The system seems to work fairly well. One does not hear of any complaints from witnesses, the courts or the defendants about the fairness of proceedings. I am sure that, in due course, those matters can be developed in constructive debates.
  However, there is an area of concern. Nothing is more likely to test the veracity of any evidence than effective cross-examination. It is incumbent on all involved in any criminal process to bring out the truth and to ensure that justice is done. Therefore, to allow the cross-examination of a witness before a trial is completely different from anything that we have previously seen in the criminal process. Adequate and proper live cross-examination at the trial of a witness is highly necessary to bring out all the issues. I shall not labour that point; I have made it sufficiently.
  The House of Commons research document states:
  "Of the two possible benefits arising from introducing video pre-trial cross-examination, the working group considered that the main one was enabling the witness to give evidence away from the court room."
  That can be done now, without the Bill, if the practice in respect of children giving evidence in a rape trial, or any other form of trial, is adopted. However, such matters can be debated more fully and minutely later.
  With regard to complainants in proceedings relating to sexual offences, here again clause 33 could be in breach of article 6. I have no sympathy for any perpetrator of such offences, but surely the right to cross-examine a witness in person is vital to a defendant. We should not lose sight of the fact that, in England and Wales, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty.
  The defendant should be entitled to conduct the defence in the manner in which he or she considers best with a minimum of interference. There may well be situations where, for example, the defendant is best placed to cross-examine, but I am not ignoring situations where clearly that can get out of hand—for example, where the complainant might have to relive in the cold light of day the horrible trauma of a sexual assault. I have every sympathy for anybody in that position and, as we know, there have been a few well-publicised cases of this nature. One can only imagine the torment of the complainant in those cases.
  A balance needs to be struck. I question whether clause 33 is necessary. The matter was thoroughly examined by the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal in the case of Brown. In that case, the Lord Chief Justice endorsed the following criteria which he referred to from a previously reported case. He said:
  "1 That the trial judge, without descending into the arena or acting on behalf of the defence, should ask such questions as he saw fit to test the reliability of prosecution witnesses;
  2 That where appropriate the judge might ask the defendant whether there were matters he wished to be put to a witness, although it would be for the judge to decide whether and how such matters might be put;
  3 That it was to be borne in mind that a heavy duty lay on the prosecution to be scrupulously fair as to how the case was presented so as to avoid any prejudice to the defendant;
  420
  4 That in summing up it was desirable to direct the jury that it was always open to a defendant to act in person but that where he chose to do so they should bear in mind the difficulty of his doing so properly;
  5 A sensible course was for the judge to explain some or all such matters to the jury at the outset of the trial to enable them to understand the course which the trial followed."
  The Lord Chief Justice went on:
  "The trial judge was obliged to have regard not only to the need to ensure a fair trial for the defendant but also to the reasonable interests of other parties to the court process, particularly witnesses, and among those witnesses who were obliged to re-live, by describing, an ordeal to which they said they had been subjected.
  It was the trial judge's clear duty to do all he could, consistently with giving the defendant a fair trial, to minimise the trauma suffered by other participants.
  A trial was not fair if a defendant, by choosing to represent himself, gained the advantage he would not otherwise have had of abusing the rules in relation to relevance and repetition which applied when witnesses were questioned.
  Judges did not lack power to protect witnesses and control questioning. The trial judge was the master of proceedings in his court."
  That was what the Lord Chief Justice said directly on this point in the Brown case.
  Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously imagine that a rape victim would carefully weigh the words of the Lord Chief Justice before appearing in court as a witness? Is it not more likely that they would be terrified at the thought that the trial judge would not be able to keep proper control of the proceedings, and that they would be abused and go through the whole process again?
  Mr. Llwyd: None of us would want that to happen and I am not underplaying the trauma that any such person would face. With respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot base his arguments on an inability of the judiciary to get up to speed on that. I am sure that judges are attuned to the need for this provision. I practise in the criminal courts and I have not found any who are wholly unattuned to the subject, even though that is a recent pronouncement. I question whether we need this. It is a debating point. I am not saying that I am right, but I am trying to contribute to the debate. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I know that there is considerable force in it.
  The Lord Chief Justice has gone further than that. He spoke on this subject in the other place and said:
  "I have never suggested in this House or anywhere that the provision is contrary to the European convention. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is one that I readily accept"—
  in other words, that there is a breach,
  "But it is not so long since what gripped the popular press and rightly engaged the attention of your Lordships was the series of unjust convictions which were a blemish not simply on the criminal justice system but on our national life. This House must act at all costs to avert the risk of miscarriages of justice. It is for that reason that I, in company with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, believe it to be urgently important that this provision shall not be brought into force unless and until it is clearly shown by practical experience to be needed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 February 1999; Vol. 596. c. 1400–01.]
  That opinion is supported by many legal practitioners on both sides in the other place.
  Allied to those points is the apparent prohibition in clause 40 of cross-examination of a complainant about sexual behaviour. The 24-hour cut-off point appears to be

  421
  somewhat artificial. It is true that, often, cases turn on this and it can be highly relevant, even decisive, if one considers that the majority of sexual offences involve complainants and defendants who are known to each other. Many will have a relationship that may extend over a considerable time. The clause needs to be amended.
  I question whether it would be appropriate to amend the clause to provide for a prohibition unless the prohibition would prejudice a fair trial of the accused or not be in the interests of justice. Such an amendment has been suggested by Liberty. I will not repeat the words of Baroness Mallalieu in the other place, but she made a compelling argument which totally undermines the need for this clause. Again, that is a matter for further debate.
  Two further matters that concern me are the youth justice provisions and inferences drawn from an accused's silence. As we know, the old system of cautions for youth has been abolished. Earlier, I listened to the thoughtful, interesting speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) who, obviously, is an expert in this area. I accept what he says.
  For some time, I practised in the juvenile courts. Often a youngster would be admonished while he chewed gum or laughed, knowing that nothing real could come of it in any event. Sometimes the young person concerned would have breached bail and perhaps broken into 12 or 15 cars the previous week even while on bail. Nothing could be done to redress the ever-descending spiral into criminality. The Bill provides a welcome step forward and it would be wrong of me to say otherwise.
  There is now an attempt to tackle the root cause of the problem. It may be that the parents are not being supportive or that the young person is not being set any kind of example in life. Those and many other factors may be examined by the youth offending team under the regime suggested in the Bill. The provision is most welcome. Family group conferences in New Zealand and Australia, and Scottish children's hearings, about which we have heard at length today, contain useful tips on ways forward. I hope that that part of the Bill will come to fruition very shortly because there is nothing worse than seeing a young person on an inexorable slide into a wasteful and hopeless existence. I welcome the provision most sincerely.
  We must not lose sight, however, of the main aim of ensuring that a young person gains better understanding of what society demands and how he or she plays his or her role in it. The framework—at least of the part of the Bill concerning youth justice—gives considerable cause for optimism, and I am encouraged by it.
  As everybody knows, the European Court of Human Rights found against the Government in the case of John Murray v. the United Kingdom, which concerned inferences drawn from the silence of the accused. Drawing detrimental inferences from a failure to answer questions breached article 6 of the European convention on human rights given that Mr. Murray had no access to legal advice and assistance. I have no doubt that the Government should, in due course, look favourably on an amendment that ensures that inferences are drawn only if legal advice was available during, as well as before, an interview. I hope that such an amendment commends itself to the Government.
  Substantial and important areas of the Bill ought to be improved. I am encouraged by the Home Secretary's comments on reasonable debate in Committee. Hopefully,
  422
  areas of the Bill will be improved as a result. Problems with regard to article 6 will no doubt be debated fully. Of necessity, I have concentrated on my concerns. I do not wish to seem churlish; the Bill has many good parts. There is much common sense in it, and much to commend it. I hope that concerns can be addressed, because I, along with others, have very grave and sincerely held reservations about some parts of the Bill.
  3.52 pm
  Angela Smith: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate which, so far, has been very interesting. I am pleased to find widespread support across the Floor of the House for the principles behind the measures on youth justice. I shall address two areas. One is youth justice—I particularly support the proposals on restorative justice for young people—and the other is the proposed support for vulnerable witnesses.
  Nowadays, there is far greater awareness of youth crime, and of the need for a far more intelligent and sustainable response and approach to reducing offending and re-offending. Unfortunately, such attention on youth crime brings with it a danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has emphasised. As the degree of youth crime is brought home to people, there is a danger that everyone starts to think that all young people are involved in crime.
  I have been greatly encouraged by the extent to which young people in my constituency are concerned about crime. I arranged a series of youth surgeries in which I met young people and addressed their concerns. At every surgery, young people themselves raised the issue of crime and youth crime. They feel that young people's reputation is being undermined by those who are involved in crime. We should be careful to acknowledge that young people may also be the greatest victims of crime. Indeed, many see themselves as victims and not perpetrators.
  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was an emphasis on reducing crime through harsher punishment. There seemed to be a belief that punishment was the best deterrent, and, the harder the punishment, the greater the deterrent, yet youth crime grew and there were fewer convictions—more crime, but more people getting away with it. Punishment is a deterrent to an extent, but certainly not on its own. It is clear that, when young people become involved in crime at an early age—often in the pre-teenage years—the surest and most effective way in which to encourage them away from crime is to intervene as soon as possible.
  When I use the term "crime", I include what some people wrongly refer to as petty crime and vandalism, which has a great impact on people's lives. Reparation orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 aim to get those who offend to understand the consequences of their crimes and the impact that so-called petty crime and vandalism can have on its victims—whether individuals or communities.
  Parts of my constituency—like those of all hon. Members—suffer badly from vandalism, but I am convinced that realising and appreciating the distress, hurt and anxiety caused would act as a deterrent. I am therefore pleased that the measures in clause 8 on youth offender contracts address the needs not only of offenders—in ensuring that they understand the consequences and impact of their action—but of victims.

  423
  One measure in clause 8 establishes mediation sessions between the victim and the offender. We must accept that such sessions will not be suitable in all cases. I hope that the Minister will confirm that they will take place only with the consent of the victim. Other countries have used mediation with great success. Family conferencing in New Zealand has been mentioned. About 10 years ago, Germany and Austria introduced such sessions originally just for juveniles, but have extended the process to adults. The French Government are assessing how victims respond to mediation; the initial response is excellent.
  We must never forget that victims' rights and needs should be addressed in their own right and not just as an adjunct to criminal justice policy. The proposed measures strike the right balance. In proposing any criminal justice policy, we must ask ourselves what victims want. I have spoken to a number of victims of crime, and it is clear that, whatever their views on criminal justice policy—they all want justice to be done and the offender to be caught—the most important thing to them is never to be a victim again. The emphasis on cutting re-offending, in this Bill and in the Crime and Disorder Act, is so important. I pay tribute to the Government's crime reduction programme, which considers repeat victims of crime and provides communities with resources to improve safety, advice and support to ensure that repeat victims do not continue to be so.
  The proposed youth offender contracts take positive action to lead young people away from crime. Examples in the Bill include stopping young people associating with certain people and cutting truancy. That will not be that easy to enforce, as youth offender panel members will appreciate. A great deal of good will and work will be required of them.
  I should like to quote a senior social worker, who spoke at a conference on restorative justice—at which I also spoke—during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill and following the publication of the White Paper. She said:
  "This is the approach I've been waiting for all my professional life."
  She is not a politician; she operates at the sharp end and knows how important it is to deter young people from committing crime. She is one of the people who will make this legislation work—and it must work.
  One aspect of the proposed youth offender panels that is particularly welcome is the locking into the system of parents or guardians. A parent or guardian, or, if the young person is in care, a representative of the local authority, is required to be present in court. Will the Minister comment on the fact that, at the moment, far too many young people initially attend court without a parent or guardian, resulting in delay of the case until a responsible adult is present? What happens if the responsible adult or parent does not accept his or her responsibility to attend a youth offender panel? Can they be forced to attend, or will another responsible adult be appointed to do so? It will be very difficult to enforce a youth offender contract without the support of a parent or guardian.
  I am not being picky about such an essential element of the Bill, but I am concerned at the small number of cases that could arise where a parent or guardian will not
  424
  act responsibly because he or she is unwilling or unable to do so—which might be why the young person has offended in the first place. Young people whose parents are not able to take responsibility, for whatever reason, need even more support in turning away from crime than those whose parents are able and willing to do so.
  I also welcome the measures to deal with vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime. Some time before I was elected as a Member of Parliament, I was marginally involved in the case of a young child who had been raped by a member of her family. It was an extremely distressing case, which brought home to me the inadequacies of the adversarial court system, especially for young witnesses and vulnerable witnesses.
  I should inform the House that I am the vice-chair of the parliamentary Voice group. Hearing at meetings of that group adults with learning difficulties who have suffered abuse tell of their court experiences brings home to one how vital are the measures in the Bill to deal with this problem. I am sure that I do not need to give the House examples. It was extremely distressing for some of the people involved to report their case to Members of Parliament.
  I am aware of cases in which vulnerable adults have been sexually abused and the case has not even reached court because the CPS has fears about how the victim will be treated and how he or she will react in the witness box. The system has to change, and the Bill goes a great way towards changing it. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing the proposals. Obviously, no one would argue for a reduction in the degree of proof needed for conviction, but the Bill addresses some of the issues surrounding vulnerable witnesses, and they are warmly welcomed.
  I have raised with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in parliamentary questions the fact that there must be adequate training for all those working in the court system to ensure that they understand the needs of those with learning difficulties. I welcome those provisions in the Bill. They are, of necessity, very wide-ranging measures, and proper training will be essential.
  I also welcome the humanisation—if there is such a word—of the courts. For many people—not only those with learning difficulties but children and those who are in court for the first time—the atmosphere and procedures can be daunting, intimidating and frightening. It may seem to some a minor matter that the court officials and the judge should remove their wigs and gowns, but I believe that that will assist many people in giving evidence, demystify the proceedings for those who are nervous and improve the quality of evidence in some cases. The fact remains that many victims and witnesses are far too frightened to give evidence. That fear allows criminals to get away with it. Anything that can be done to protect the witness or victim, while also protecting the right to a fair trial, must be done.
  I should like to raise with the Minister a few concerns about the Bill. They are minor when compared to the scale of the improvements, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider them as further improvements or clarifications that can be made later in the passage of the Bill. I am not clear why special measures should be available to witnesses under 17 and not to witnesses under 18. I am also concerned that the way in which clause 16(1)(a) is drafted does not

  425
  clarify the Government's intent. It does not make it entirely clear that adults with moderate learning difficulties are included. I do not believe that it is the intention to exclude them and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will make that clear.
  From my experience of talking to victims, it is clear to me that many rely heavily on their carers. Can we make it clear whether relatives and carers can support witnesses in court when expressing their own views, and when appropriate? An example was mentioned to me personally by a young adult in court. An individual's disability may extend to a speech impediment that can make it difficult for them to be understood by those who are not used to their speech. In that context, carers could assist the court and improve the quality of evidence.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is concern that the special measures available to the courts will be allowed only at the discretion of the court. I believe that the legislation is framed the right way round in that the court will have to apply not to use those measures, but my concern is that leaving it to the court's discretion could be a deterrent to some witnesses. Unless the witness has confidence that special measures will be available, they may be reluctant to come forward. In rape cases, for example, a defence lawyer may challenge a woman's right to such protection. Whether or not the lawyer is successful, women may not want to go to court—as often happens now—as they will remain unsure how they will be treated in court.
  Ms Drown: One thing that the Home Office report "Speaking up for Justice" pointed out was that witnesses wanted certainty. Does my hon. Friend agree that only if protection can be provided automatically will that certainty be possible for witnesses?
  Angela Smith: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I have made and want to develop. Special measures such as screening the victim from the accused and giving evidence by video link —I would say that live video link was appropriate—and clearing the court while the victim gives evidence are all excellent in that they enhance the protection of the victim without being detrimental to the right of the accused to a fair trial. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the suggestion that those who report sexual offences could automatically receive the protection unless they did not want it? I fear that, without an automatic right, some women will be deterred from going to court—the very thing that the Bill is trying to avoid. The lack of an automatic right could also lead to different rights in different courts. Again, uncertainty about whether protection will be available could be a deterrent. Failing that, we need to give clear guidelines to courts so that women can be clearly assured that they will get protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said, uncertainty may deter women from taking their case to court.

  I greatly welcome clause 40, which restricts questioning about a victim's past sexual history. However, some concern remains about how such questioning could ever be relevant. The fact that the court has leave to allow such evidence to be submitted could also be a deterrent to being prepared to go to court. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's assurances on the matter earlier, but I am not sure that they went far enough to reassure all victims. If he will not consider that leave to allow such
  426
  evidence should be omitted entirely, I hope that guidelines and strict instructions to the court will be made to protect victims.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) gave the example of previous allegations of rape made by the same alleged victim. I hazard that that is an issue not of sexual history but of criminal actions and criminal history, and that that would be appropriate to raise.
  There can be no doubt that the Bill enhances youth justice and introduces many criminal evidence measures that will be warmly and widely welcomed. I have been surprised at the number of letters and telephone calls that I have had from constituents on this issue. The correspondence was warmly supportive of the Bill. As all hon. Members will know from going about their duties in their constituencies, it is with issues such as these that our constituents want the House to deal.
  I believe that the Bill will lead to a far fairer system, improve access to justice for victims and address the central issue of getting young people away from crime. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comment that the Bill is good but not perfect. I think it is excellent, but I hope that we can see some improvement in it. I commend it.
  4.7 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate on an important subject. Youth justice is a high priority for all political parties. If we do not get it right, the collateral damage to society can be tremendous. It is right that the focus of the Bill is on first-time offenders. It is a fact that 80 per cent. of people who commit offences do not do so again. Nevertheless, there is still substantial room for improvement. The measures to set up youth offender panels have to be welcomed, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) that the prescription that every young offender has to go through the procedure, bearing in mind the resource implications, needs to be looked at. In certain instances—my hon. Friend set out a number—it might not be appropriate to tie up resources on someone who has fallen into bad company and committed an offence but who has a good record, when the focusing of resources on other individuals would have a far greater effect.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale that the establishment of youth offender panels will be rather a long haul. We have pilot schemes and it will take quite a while to get the panels system up and running. There are serious resource implications, and I hope that the Government will address them.
  The thinking behind youth offender panels is good. I know that there is something of a fashion for restorative justice, but it is in any case a good principle. John Braithwaite, an American criminologist, has written a number of books and articles on it. We have heard about the New Zealand experience, where people went back to the Maori inheritance to deal with youths. The Home Secretary mentioned the experience of Scottish children's panels. All those ideas can be adapted to our youth justice system. Making restitution to victims has to be a key factor, as has reintegration into a law-abiding society. The way in which many young people are brought up—unfortunately, many come from broken homes—means that it is important to reintegrate them into a law-abiding

  427
  society. Taking responsibility for behaviour must be an important part of learning to lead a law-abiding life. All such approaches are to be commended.
  I am extremely pleased about the measures to involve parents and keep them involved. That must be a key factor in ensuring that a young person who has gone off the straight and narrow returns to responsible life. Such involvement is also important for the parents; the most surprising thing about modern life is that, sometimes. parents are not aware of what their children are getting up to. In Dorset, we ran a scheme in which the police picked up young children carrying alcohol and took them back to their homes still carrying the alcohol. In that way, parents were made aware that their 13, 14 or 15-year-old child had been out drinking, sometimes having taken alcohol from their home. The scheme has been pretty successful because parents who think that their young child does no wrong have had to address the fact that their child was out—perhaps up to no good—mixing with others and drinking alcohol. That is one way of confronting parents and their involvement is most important.
  Another important point is that the views of victims may be sought, although only with their approval. One of the weaknesses of our criminal justice system is that victims often feel totally uninvolved in what goes on after a crime and are sometimes surprised by the decisions of the Crown Prosecution Service. Under the measures in the Bill, if victims are amenable, they can give their opinions as to what happens to the young offender. That is important not only for the young individual, but for the victims, because they will have some involvement in what happens after what may have been a most traumatic event.
  Young people are the key to achieving a law-abiding society, and any investment that we make will be well worth it; the savings will be phenomenal. There are many concerns in society. In 1992, when I was a prospective candidate in Walsall, North, one of the experiences that surprised me was that kids on a new estate were going round ringing the doorbells of elderly residents. Even at that level, great distress can be caused to elderly people. If we can catch people, especially at the time of their first offence, it will be a major improvement, provided that the response is not too prescriptive and that we put in enough resources to make the measures work. There is a degree of flexibility in the proposals for the orders—between three and 12 months—and that is to be welcomed. The conferences on progress are also welcome. A reasonable plan might be set out at the beginning of the process, but things might turn out differently. The fact that the referral order or contract can be varied is important.
  The public must have confidence in our youth justice system, and I hope that the measure will assist in that. It is a key area for the future and I welcome the youth offender panels, but with the concerns that I have expressed.
  I listened carefully when the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. LIwyd) expressed his concerns. I share the concerns about pre-recorded evidence; video conferencing links are good, and the fact that they are live is an important factor. I hope that the Home Secretary's earlier comments that he will be responsive to debates in Committee will apply to that matter; it is one that we must consider carefully.
  428
  In relation to cross-examination by unrepresented defendants, we heard of some appalling cases of witnesses being treated badly. However, 1 still have reservations about whether two or three extremely public and widely reported cases should mean that the rights of other people, some of whom may have cross-examined and been acquitted, should be trampled on. We are considering taking away the rights of defendants, and that needs careful examination.
  Angela Smith: I accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman in relation to those two cases, and that we might be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. However, in those cases, the women who had been raped were cross-examined by their alleged rapists. Does he not accept that that is a deterrent to other women to report crime and go to court?
  Mr. Syms: I accept what the hon. Lady says. They were appalling cases and no one would have any sympathy with what happened. However, there may be other means of controlling such matters. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy spoke about judges briefing juries on procedure, and that would be beneficial.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: In respect of the intervention by the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Court of Appeal in the Ralston Edwards case made it clear that the judge had full power to take authority and to take command of such a situation so as to prevent the unacceptable treatment of a complainant? The Court of Appeal made a firm judgment after that very bad case.
  Mr. Syms: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The matter was certainly considered. Nevertheless, we must still be careful and the matter must be discussed in Committee. As has often been said in this debate, there are questions of balance. I have not come to a firm conclusion, but the matter must be tested in Committee. It is easy to use public examples of appalling cases to change the law and affect the rights of thousands of people about whom we never hear.
  My final point is on press restrictions and clause 43. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) asked whether the blanket ban was overdoing it and whether such a ban conformed with the European convention on human rights. There are concerns about that blanket ban in Fleet street and it is another matter that must be considered in Committee.
  I welcome most of what is in the Bill. We must test the proposition put forward earlier by the Home Secretary so that we ensure that the balance between the needs of victims and defendants is correct. I am sure that at the end of the process we shall make good progress and have a better Bill.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I agree with my hon. Friends and with some other hon. Members that this is a fine Bill. I welcome it; I welcome the youth justice provisions, which follow up Labour's election pledge to deal effectively with persistent young offenders. It adds alternatives to custodial sentences to give such

  429
  young people future lives free from crime. The measures on witness protection are especially welcome; it is most important to convict the real criminals.
  I want to concentrate my comments on sexual offences, especially rape cases, which are dealt with in the Bill. In 1992, I introduced the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill with the support of the organisation Women Against Rape. That Bill pressed for the wholesale reform of the rape laws and achieved some success. Following its introduction, case law made rape in marriage a crime; that had not been the case for centuries. That was welcome. Male rape was accepted as a criminal offence for the first time. However, many matters such as consent, or non-consent—especially in relation to rape—were not addressed. I welcome the fact that the Bill begins to address those matters.
  Witness support for complainants in sexual offence trials is a welcome measure. Witnesses can be screened from the defendant; they can give evidence on live television link; or the court can be cleared while they give evidence. Unrepresented defendants will be banned from personally cross-examining complainants in sexual offence cases. The examples we heard showed that the victim relived the event; it was like a double rape because she had to endure the experience all over again.
  The Government have made a laudable attempt to address the issue of the complainant's sexual history, to ensure that general allegations about the complainant's sexual history that are made purely to attack her credibility will no longer be allowed. The violence of rape is intolerable and is in no way mitigated by the victim's past sexual history—that has nothing to do with the violence that is rape. I note that the Government's "Speaking up for Justice" report, which was published last year, cited a study showing that judges allowed up to 75 per cent. of defence applications to question the victim about her sexual history in a way
  "that seems to go far beyond that demanded in the interests of relevance and … fairness to the defendant."
  That is a clear reason for action.
  At this point, I wish to return to an issue that I raised in an intervention during the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—his assumption that there would be less chance of court prosecutions succeeding in rape cases than in cases relating to other offences. I do not understand why that is necessarily so. Already, the Crown Prosecution Service goes through such cases with a fine-tooth comb before they even get to court, and many cases that should reach court do not do so because of that practice. To assume that the cases are less likely to succeed in court is a double block on obtaining successful prosecutions. We need to challenge such basic assumptions, for they are one reason why only one in 200 rapists is ever convicted—a worrying statistic, which the justice system needs to address.
  The loopholes in the Bill cause me concern, especially those concerning women's sexual history, such as the 24-hours provision, which relates to the complainant's relations with other men. In December, I wrote to the Minister of State on the subject of the consensual behaviour of the complainant with someone other than the accused, if it occurs within 24 hours of the alleged offence. I said that I acknowledged the purpose of the provision, but asked
  "why should the complainant's sexual behaviour with someone other than the defendant in this time period be deemed to be relevant?"
  430
  In January, my hon. Friend replied, saying:
  "The defendant may wish to say in his defence that he had consensual sex with the complainant shortly before or after the alleged rape and that the incident which the complainant now alleges was rape, was equally consensual."
  I can understand that, but my hon. Friend went on to say:
  "Or the defendant might have evidence which shows that the complainant had (consensual) sex with someone else shortly after the alleged rape. It would be wrong in the Government's view to prevent him from adducing evidence of this, or asking questions about it, in such circumstances."
  I think that whether the complainant had sex with someone else is absolutely irrelevant. The issue on trial is what the accused did or did not do to her.
  Mr. Hogg: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that there are a number of cases where it might be relevant for the jury to know that the complainant is a person who is inclined to promiscuity? That can go to the question of consent.
  Mr. Cohen: I do not agree with that. As I tried to establish through my 1992 Bill, the issue is purely one of whether consent is given or not given—if consent is not given, the act is rape. Whether or not the woman is promiscuous is irrelevant; if she has not given her consent, it is rape.
  We must not accept the argument—and it should certainly not be used as a legal defence—that a woman having sex with another man, or even flirting with other man, somehow implies her consent to sex with the accused man. In Michigan in the United States, the law has been altered: except in cases where the identity of the accused is at issue, it allows evidence of sexual history only with the accused, but with no other man. I believe that that is the right way forward. In some cases, a jury needs to know if the victim and her alleged attacker have had a sexual relationship—it might explain how they came to be together on the occasion of the alleged rape—but questions about sex with other men are never relevant, serving only to demean and humiliate the victim, attack her character and divert attention from the facts of the rape. We should consider adopting the Michigan approach.
  I am concerned that the Bill still allows legal credence to be given to an unreasonable belief on the part of the accused that consent had been given. In the other place, Lord Thomas of Gresford said that
  "in almost every case where the defence is one of consent, there will be an additional defence that, even if the complainant did not consent, the defendant reasonably believed that she did consent. The two defences almost invariably run together.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 51.]
  Lord Goodhart said:
  "English law has gone wrong in allowing unreasonable belief as a defence to a charge of rape."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 1999; Vol. 598, c. 1213.]
  We should not give credence to an unreasonable belief.
  The Government's women's unit wrote to Women Against Rape on that subject, saying that the Home Office view was that:
  "For example, a defendant might claim that he believed the complainant was consenting because he had been told that she always kicked and screamed during sex. This would be relevant to his honest belief."

  431
  That is not a reasonable view—it is the rough sex defence, which has been used repeatedly and quite unjustifiably in many rape cases. We know that a small minority of people engage in sado-masochistic practices, but it is dangerous to allow such a legal defence to be used in rape cases. The rough sex defence is only an easy excuse for non-consensual, violent rape.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if a woman decided that her best protection was to remain passive, she might be accused during the course of the trial of having consented, simply because she did not resist?
  Mr. Cohen: That is a good point. That is why we have to come to terms with what does and does not constitute proper consent in such circumstances.
  The other loophole that causes me concern is that defence banisters could still bring in evidence of behaviour "similar" to the woman's behaviour at the time of the alleged rape. That appears to give very wide scope—let me give one example. A complainant who goes to nightclubs regularly might be asked by a defence barrister whether she picks up men at those nightclubs and has sex with them. If she answers in the affirmative, that information could be used to justify the similar behaviour argument in the rape case. That is clearly unreasonable, and the clause concerns me.
  It was suggested in another place that judges should give a mandatory warning that past consent with the accused does not imply consent every time. I think that that is the correct move. For example, in the case of rape in marriage, although consent would almost certainly have been given in the past, it does not mean that consent was given in the case of a brutal assault
  —and judges should make that point.
  Ms Drown: I agree with my hon. Friend that accounts of the sexual history between the witness and the defendant should be limited. Does he accept also that sexual history is not always relevant? We cannot say that a husband can never rape a wife when we know that, unfortunately, that happens too frequently.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Although a couple may have had a mutual consenting relationship, it does not mean that rape cannot occur subsequently. We should not offer a legal defence to the opposite effect and I believe that we should consider introducing a mandatory judge's warning in such circumstances.
  I think it is right to prevent the defendant from cross-examining the witness, as that is akin to a double rape. However, it is possible that defence banisters could be more aggressive, ruthless and clinical in cross-examination. We must address those issues in the law in order to protect the complainants—particularly the women—involved.
  I have concentrated on the areas that require further consideration, but my criticisms do not detract from my earlier comments. This is a fine Bill in many respects and, like my colleagues, I welcome the Home Secretary's
  432
  admission that he has an open mind when it comes to improving the legislation. I hope that he will consider some of my suggestions in that regard.
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I must declare an interest in the debate as I am a banister practising in the criminal courts and may be involved in rape cases. I support the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who said that this is an important Bill. It makes substantial changes to evidence in the criminal law, and I shall focus on that section of the Bill rather than on the first part.
  I must make a general point in response partly to the comments of the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and partly to the remarks of the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). I listened to their contributions, and I got the impression that they were inclined to lose sight of a very important fact: the House must safeguard the interests of defendants. It is perfectly true that we must ensure that witnesses and complainants are not subjected to greater trauma than need be. Obviously, it is a disagreeable experience to appear in court, to give evidence and to be cross-examined and one does not want to make that still more difficult. We also have a public interest in ensuring that complainants come forward, for all the reasons that hon. Members have advanced.
  However, at the end of the day, the most important person in a criminal case is the defendant—especially when he is facing a serious charge such as rape and when, if found guilty, he will probably be sent to prison for a long time. The House must be sure that nothing that we do to address the legitimate concerns of complainants or witnesses detracts from the fairness of a trial. That general point underpins the particular issues that I shall raise.
  I oppose the prohibition, in clause 33, of a defendant's ability to cross-examine in cases involving sexual offences. We must recognise that the situation contemplated seldom arises. That is not surprising, as most defendants choose to take advantage of legal aid, which is generally available. Most defendants assume—probably correctly—that a lawyer will do a better job than they would. However, a number of defendants, although not many, who do not like lawyers—I am not particularly critical of them for that—or who conclude that they would do a better job than a possible representative choose to conduct their own cases. In the great generality of criminal cases—there are one or two exceptions—a defendant has that right, and we should be very slow in a democracy to deny a defendant the right to conduct his own case. We should do so only if there is an absolutely compelling reason to justify that decision.
  At the same time, we must be conscious of the possibility of abuse. We must recognise that abuse has occurred in the criminal courts. The Home Secretary—or perhaps the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—referred to the cases of Ralston Edwards and Milton Brown. However, the fact that only two cases are in hon. Members' minds, emphasises the rarity of such abuses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and other hon. Members pointed out, the case involving Milton Brown went to appeal and the Court of Appeal spelt out the powers of the trial judge. The trial judge has a robust power, which he or she is encouraged

  433
  to use, to intervene in order to prevent an improper exercise of the right of cross-examination by the defendant.
  The Court of Appeal heard that case in May 1998 and, so far as I am aware, there have been no further cases of oppressive cross-examination by defendants. I think that it is premature to conclude that the Court of Appeal's advice to trial judges is not effective. Therefore, I conclude that it is wrong at present to remove from the defendant the right to cross-examine in sexual offence cases. I might come to such a view in the future if trial judges do not heed the advice of the Court of Appeal, but I believe that they probably will do so.
  Mr. Leigh: It is not just a matter of defendants—who face possibly 10 years in jail—having an ancient right to cross-examine their accusers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the point made in another place that there are many more acquittals in rape cases these days because there are many more prosecutions for marital or date rape? In those circumstances, a defendant may have perfectly good reasons for wanting to cross-examine the complainant and put his case directly to his ex-wife or ex-girl friend.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is probably right. Consent is the difficulty in cases of date rape or rape within marriage. When a consent has undoubtedly been given on previous occasions, it will take a great deal to persuade a jury that the consent has been withdrawn. Therefore, I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's intervention.
  I revert to the point that I had in mind on clause 33. The Home Secretary made the point—I understand it entirely—that the court has the power to appoint a legal representative to cross-examine on behalf of the defendant thus disfranchised. However, I do not regard that as a sufficient solution. To start with, a defendant who has been obdurate on the appointment of a legal representative in the first instance may well not be very co-operative when it comes to giving instructions to the legal representative who has been appointed by the court. In parenthesis, we need to keep in mind that the Bill provides in terms that the legal representative is not responsible to the defendant. That is the language of the Bill.
  We may well find that the defendant will not give instructions—[Interruption.) The Minister of State shrugs, but he should not. The idea that the legal representative can necessarily gain a proper sense of the defence from the papers is an illusion. That is especially the situation if the defendant has declined to answer questions during the interview process, as might well be the case. I am sure that that is within the knowledge of the Minister of State, and certainly it is within mine. In that event, the legal representative instructed by the court on behalf of the defendant will not be able to put the case with any degree of clarity.
  If we deny to the defendant the right to cross-examine in those cases, we are creating the risk of unfair convictions.
  Ms Margaret Moran: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an extensive case for cross-examination and self-representation. Does he accept that, in certain cases involving criminal sexual activity—
  434
  especially incest, including the sexual violation of daughters—the right of self-representation does not exist? The Bill will merely extend that practice.
  Mr. Hogg: It will more than extend it because the Bill would extend it dramatically. The hon. Lady is right to say that there are some cases where the right of self-representation is restricted. However, we are thinking about a dramatic extension of that practice. That applies to clause 33 and 34. The reservations that I have expressed about clause 33 extend inevitably to the process that is contemplated in clause 34, which is to build on the precedent referred to by the hon. Lady and to extend it very much further. I am against the prohibition to which I have referred.
  Ms Beverley Hughes: I accept that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is raising some valid issues that are difficult to weigh in the balance. In trying to weigh those issues, will he accept that the main function of the court is to establish the truth and to administer justice? If the ability of a witness and a victim to tell the truth and to give full evidence in court is jeopardised by being cross-examined by her alleged assailant, that is of essential interest to the court and should carry more weight than at present the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving to it.
  Mr. Hogg: The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that I do not agree with the underlying assumption. The purpose of a criminal court is to ensure a fair trial, which is not quite the same as trying to determine the truth. The process of a criminal court is to ensure that a defendant is not convicted unless the case is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is slightly different from the process of determining the truth. In one sense, the phrase "the process of determining the truth" is more akin to the civil standard of proof—on the balance of probabilities—than the criminal standard. I return to the point that the purpose of the criminal court is to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial, by which I mean that the defendant is not convicted unless the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
  I move on to the clause 40 point. I do not support the proposal that would restrict the ability of legal representatives to cross-examine the complainant about sexual behaviour. On that point, I disagree with the hon. Members for Basildon and for Leyton and Wanstead. We need to keep in mind that there is already a restriction within the criminal law that is imposed by section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. In effect, that restriction prevents, without the leave of the judge, examination or cross-examination of the complainant as to sexual behaviour other than with the defendant. I believe that it is not necessary to extend the existing law or, to put it differently, I do not believe that the case has been made out.
  The plain fact, distasteful though it may be, is that, in certain cases, it is both relevant and necessary for the purposes of a fair trial to cross-examine a woman about her sexual background. As one who has had to do it, I can say that it is a very distasteful exercise. It is not something that most advocates embark on lightly. It is an extremely distasteful exercise, most of all for the complainant but also for the advocate, at least for an advocate of any sensitivity. However, there are cases where sexual behaviour is relevant—for example, cases involving consent.

  435
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead. If a complainant has a propensity to promiscuous behaviour, that fact may be relevant to the question of consent. Not only may it be relevant to consent, it may be a matter that should be before the jury. The same consideration incidentally applies to a propensity to particular sexual practices. That, too, can be relevant as to whether the prosecution has proved lack of consent.
  Ms Beverley Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to both hon. Ladies. First, however, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes).
  Ms Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman define promiscuous? Is there an absolute definition? If so, how should it be interpreted?
  Mr. Hogg: If the evidence is that, in a particular case, the complainant in a casual way agreed to sex and there was evidence that, on many other occasions, she was inclined to do that with people she did not know well, that is a fact that should be before the jury. The jury might well conclude that, in the particular case, that is what happened.
  Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in other criminal prosecutions—for example, for assault or burglary—the crime of which the defendant is accused is dealt with in its own right? It is not linked to the history of the individual. Other aspects of his conduct are revealed only after sentence has been passed. Why, then, is a woman's history relevant to the case in point?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is muddling two principles. I am sorry to say that, as I do not wish to be unfair to her. She is speaking about the position of the defendant. As a general proposition, the antecedents of a defendant cannot be brought before a court, but as a general proposition, the antecedents of a witness other than the defendant can. The exception that is being argued for is an exception in favour of the complainant in sexual offences cases, which would take them out of the general pattern of the criminal law.
  I have been arguing that there are cases involving consent where previous conduct is material, but there may also be other kinds of cases where it is material. For example, in a case where the complainant has undoubtedly had sexual intercourse within the relevant time frame and where there is forensic evidence to substantiate that, but the defendant asserts that it was not him but somebody else who had sexual contact, it must be right to be able to adduce evidence by
  436
  cross-examination or otherwise to support that assertion. I accept that the Bill does not positively prevent that, but it makes it substantially more difficult.
  Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hogg: The Minister of State shakes his head and I disagree with him. The measure adds to the present law and makes that more difficult.
  Mr. Boateng: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the issue of promiscuity is relevant to consent? Is he saying seriously to the House in this day and age that someone who is promiscuous does not have the right to say no?
  Mr. Hogg: As the Minister has some difficulty in accepting the proposition from me, perhaps he will accept it from the Lord Chief Justice. I quote from the Second Reading debate in the other place, in which the Lord Chief Justice said:
  "The simple truth is that on an issue of whether a complainant consented to sexual relations with the defendant, the fact that the complainant has behaved promiscuously on other occasions outside the window of 24 hours before and after the commission of the offence may well—I emphasise 'may well'—be relevant"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1272.]
  That is all that I am saying, and those are the words of no less a person than the Lord Chief Justice when the matter was debated in the other place, so the Minister had better be a bit chary of dismissing those views with the alacrity that he has shown.
  I shall touch on two other points which both relate to part II. Again, I make the point that the purpose of the criminal law is to be fair to defendants. We are in the business of ensuring that defendants get a fair trial. We must be extremely cautious before the House lends itself to a process that undermines the fairness of a trial.
  I want to say a word about special measures and eligible witnesses. I understand full well the Government's concern—not an unworthy concern—to ensure that eligible witnesses as defined in the Bill can, in certain circumstances, receive special protection. I disagree with the hon. Member for Basildon who suggested that that should always be made available. On any view, it should be a matter for the discretion of the trial judge.
  We should understand that special measures—for example, the erection of screens or an order requiring the court to be emptied can work to the prejudice of a defendant. Such orders can create an atmosphere that is prejudicial to the defence, because, by implication, they suggest to the jury that there is a risk of intimidation.
  Video links are another example. I am not against all video links; there are cases in which they are appropriate. In many cases, however, they are not helpful. The immediacy of direct cross-examination is lacking. Hon. Members have only to reflect on how they watch the proceedings of the House on the television screens in their offices, and they will know that that lacks immediacy. Moreover, once the principle of video links is established, that emphasises the vulnerability or the sensitivity of the complainant or the witness. That may be appropriate in some cases, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the measures can work to the prejudice of a fair trial of the defendant.

  437
  I am not saying that we should not have the special measures; I am saying that, in Committee, that part of the Bill needs to be looked at critically from the perspective of the defendant. The Committee should ask itself whether the criteria should be more rigorously defined and whether the presumptions should be tilted against the party that makes the application for the special measures direction.
  On video-recording of cross-examination, by definition, that cross-examination takes place before the trial. We are not talking about cross-examination through a live line, which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned, which is also the subject of a special measures direction, but is different from what I talk about now.
  It is a small point, but I hope that the House will keep it in mind. The Bill contemplates the possibility of cross-examination by a person other than the legal representative of the defendant. On the face of it, I find that difficult to countenance. The following point is much more important. I am glad to see that the Home Secretary is now present. It is always nice to see him, but it is particularly nice at this point. I was talking about cross-examination on a video before the trial, the point on which I intervened during his speech.
  In principle, I am against that for the following reason. Until a case is under way, one has heard the evidence and seen the parties, it is extraordinarily difficult to be absolutely certain what the issues will be. The Home Secretary referred, fairly, to primary and secondary disclosure. That will sometimes make clear the relevant issues, but it will by no means always do so. I have been involved in many a case where I thought that point A would be the bull point, but it turned out to be largely irrelevant and what mattered was a different point. In the great majority of cases, that fact does not become apparent until the case has got under way and has been going for a while.
  I accept that there are provisions in the Bill that enable further cross-examination to take place, but, as the Minister is aware, the criteria for allowing that further cross-examination is very tightly defined. There is no need for the provision, especially as there is the proviso in favour of the live link. It is positively undesirable. I hope that, in Committee, the provision will be struck out.
  I am conscious that I have occupied more of the House's time than I had wished. I fear that, in their concern to protect complainants and witnesses—a wholly legitimate concern—the Government run the risk of undermining the fairness of our criminal system. Some parts of the Bill—certainly those to which I have drawn attention—are likely to prejudice a fair trial. I hope that those matters will be carefully considered in Committee. If the Bill is not changed in Committee, I hope that the Conservative party will have the courage to vote against it on Third Reading.
  4.59 pm
  Ms Beverley Hughes: I support the Bill in its entirety. I should like to speak on many of its aspects, but I intend to restrict my remarks to part II.
  In recent speeches today, some of the critical issues and underlying principles that may divide hon. Members have been raised. The right hon. and learned Member for
  438
  Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) identified some of them. I am familiar with the problems of child sexual abuse, which I shall use as an example to draw out some of the important underlying principles of the Bill.
  We have heard a great deal about the need to balance the rights of defendants to a fair trial with the needs of victims to put their evidence before the court. That is a valid and complex issue and the balance is not easy to strike. I should like in this context to respond to some of the points made by Opposition Members. What do we mean by a fair trial for defendants? Should they have free rein in court to cross-examine? If the traditional conventions of the courts do not enable an accuser to give the fullest and clearest possible evidence, we cannot say the trial is fair for the defendant or the victim.
  Mr. Llwyd: The Lord Chief Justice has pronounced on the issue and the jury is out. I believe that there is some consensus. Judges must take heed of what the Lord Chief Justice has said and must observe every aspect of the guidelines very carefully. If they do, there will be no problem of witnesses being intimidated, because the cross-examination will be stopped. That provides equal protection for witnesses and the rights of the defendant.
  Ms Hughes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I know that he has considerable experience. However, his view is predicated on the assumption that judges will implement what the Lord Chief Justice has said in the way that is envisaged. Judges already have limited provisions to enable children to give evidence more effectively, but they have not been used in child sexual abuse cases to the extent that the cases have demanded. It is legitimate to raise questions about the perspectives that prevail in courtrooms among lawyers and judges, and to consider to what extent we can be assured that the necessary actions will be taken without legislation.
  Mr. Leigh: I know that I am not going to convince the hon. Lady, because she thinks that there should be a blanket denial of the right of the accused to cross-examine in a rape case, but does she think that there may be exceptional circumstances in which, by leave of the court
  —and only by leave of the court—the accused should be allowed to cross-examine the complainant? For example, if she is an ex-girlfriend, should he not be entitled to ask her why, in his view, she is telling lies?
  Ms Hughes: I cannot envisage such circumstances, so I guess that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have a different opinion from his on the general principle.
  In the criminal justice system, those parts of the process of investigating and protecting children that have to do with prosecution have failed the victims of child sexual abuse and their families. The incidence and prevalence of the offence is much greater than the public appreciate. That is largely because only a small number of such cases reach court and only a small number of those that reach court result in a successful prosecution.
  We have made considerable progress in the processes of protecting children when an allegation has been made, and in the multi-disciplinary process of investigation. However, we have not made similar progress in the criminal justice system—in how it decides whether to prosecute such cases, and in how those prosecutions are executed.

  439
  The advisory committee on video-recorded evidence, which produced the Piggott report in 1989, not only made a raft of recommendations—which have largely been incorporated into the Bill—on dealing with child witnesses, but identified one of the main reasons for the lack of progress in the criminal justice system. The committee believed that lawyers' and judges' perception of, and attitude towards, children's evidence was such that that evidence was not taken sufficiently seriously, and that legal processes have been very slow in adapting to the specific needs of children and of children who have been violated.
  In a previous professional capacity, I undertook some research with a small team investigating the nature and incidence across the country of ritual and organised child sexual abuse. As part of the research, we had to examine police and social service records of their investigations of about 20,000 cases of alleged child sexual abuse, which entailed reading the transcripts of children's statements. It was a harrowing experience for my research team. However, even more harrowing was our realisation, after following up those cases, that fewer than 5 per cent. of the cases ended up in court, and that a very tiny percentage of them resulted in a successful prosecution.
  I appreciate the views of experienced lawyers who express in the Chamber their concerns for defendants. However, I feel very strongly that, as parliamentarians, we must deal with a wider issue of justice that becomes acutely obvious in cases of child sexual abuse. The figures themselves show that our criminal justice system is allowing most alleged perpetrators to walk free and abuse again. We, as parliamentarians, must therefore ask ourselves whether the criminal justice system is serving the interests of children and of justice. I argue very strongly that, on the basis of the evidence in child sexual abuse cases, the answer is clearly no.
  I therefore believe that, as responsible parliamentarians, we have a duty to change the system, while accepting the difficult balances that have to be struck. I accept that it is very easy to make an allegation of a sexual offence, and that it is very important that a defendant should be able to try to defend himself or, occasionally, herself. Equally, we have to recognise that, so far, the balance in cases of child sexual abuse has been tipped strongly in favour of the defendant, and insufficiently in favour of protecting children by the successful prosecution of offenders.
  The nature of the issue is evidenced also by the very large number of allegations of child sexual abuse that have been fully investigated—they are not frivolous—and have resulted in prosecutions, but that have been discontinued in court. Furthermore—going back a stage—a high proportion of cases never even reached court, as Crown Prosecution Service solicitors decided that, evidentially, a case would not stand up.
  The issue brings us to the heart of some of the Bill's provisions. We have to find ways of enabling children to tell their story to a court in a way that will increase the chances of—on my definition—a fair trial. A trial has patently been unfair if a child cannot provide to the court the fullest and most detailed evidence that he or she is able to give within his or her limitations. I therefore very strongly support the Bill's provision of special measures
  440
  and eligibility criteria, which will be an essential and fundamental step forward if we really are going to tackle the issue.
  It is not only a question of justice for individual children, important though that is. As a society, if we are going to take more seriously the larger issue of child sexual abuse, not only do we have to be effective in protecting children and investigating allegations, but the prosecution process has to be more effective as part of the armoury against such abuse as a social problem.
  I support the measures. However, although they are important, they are only a necessary condition for more effective prosecution; they are not, of themselves, a sufficient condition. That is because the measures will be effective only in so far as we can begin to change the attitude of Crown prosecution solicitors and of judges, who must show themselves more disposed to use the measures, to begin to change the culture in court, and to make it easier for children to give their evidence in the interests of a fair and just system.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I apologise to the House for the fact that other parliamentary business kept me out of the Chamber for part of the debate, although I have heard much of it.
  I wish to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on youth offender panels. If we are going down that road, it is extraordinary that the conditions of panels will apply only to first-time offenders. As with any law, it will not be retrospective. However, there will be a cut-off point, so that anyone who may have offended in a minor way before the introduction of the legislation will, effectively, fall outside the net.
  I am working on the fond assumption that that will not be by any means a licence for the Bench to release back into the community, against the public interest, young people who more properly ought to be dealt with more severely because of the severity of their crimes. Clearly, that would not be progress.
  If the proposal is a good thing—and I take it that most hon. Members believe that, in theory, it is—it surely should be extended to second and even third-time offenders on appropriate occasions, as determined by the Bench. The thrust of the measure is to try to keep very young offenders away from a life of almost institutionalised criminality. If that is to work, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State must look again at this matter in Committee.
  I wish to refer to the provisions in the Bill that relate to sexual offences. I am concerned that, once again, the law of unintended consequences may cut in if we are not careful. I listened with great interest and respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who, as a distinguished lawyer, knows much more about these issues than I do. My experience is quite simply as a constituency Member of Parliament and my offering is anecdotal rather than legal and experienced, as my right hon. and learned Friend's was.
  I wish to give two examples to illustrate my point of view. The first relates directly to my family. When my daughter was small, her aunt—who was then also in her teens—was attacked by two men on holiday at night while

  441
  leaving a club. She was jumped from behind, strangled, raped and left for dead. Miraculously, she recovered, and I saw her two days after the attack. The bruises on her neck were still vivid, and every single blood vessel in both eyes had burst; her eyes were bright red, as a result of the ferocity of the attack. No one who has experienced that kind of aftermath—and the internal trauma that goes with it—can possibly believe anything other than that rape is a vile crime.
  However, one of my first duties as a Member of Parliament following my election in 1983 was to see, at their request, the young wife and mother-in-law of a young man who was detained in Canterbury prison, having been convicted of a rape. They both pleaded his innocence. One might have thought that a mother-in-law would feel quite strongly about a son-in-law who had acknowledged that he had gone out to a nightclub and made love to a woman who was not his wife.
  Both ladies convinced me that I should go and see my constituent in Canterbury prison. It was the very first time I had been inside a prison. It perfectly likely that most Members of Parliament, when first elected, will not have had occasion to go into a prison. It is a fairly daunting experience and not one that I would want to repeat, except to visit constituents.
  I interviewed my constituent in prison for about an hour and a half and came away with a feeling of grave disquiet. On my way out, the warden said, "Can you do anything for him, Sir?" I asked why and he said, "Because he shouldn't be in here. He is not guilty." Prison wardens are not given to believing that all their charges are innocent.
  Prisoners take a fairly robust view of those who are guilty of sexual crimes, especially against women and children, which they find offensive, as we all do. My constituent had never been on rule 43 for his own protection, because everybody in the prison believed that he was innocent. I took up the case and discovered that not only the warden and I but the probation officer were convinced that it was a genuine and serious wrongful conviction. That was 15 years ago, and I am still fighting the case.
  It is virtually impossible to get the conviction reversed. The case is currently before the review committee, which is deeply reluctant to reintervene because, frankly, most people recognise that there is very little mileage in being dubbed a defender of rapists. That does not alter the fact that a significant number of people who have been closely involved with the case and have examined the forensic evidence, or lack of it, and seen the clothing that was indubitably tampered with after the forensic scientists had examined it, believe that the man is innocent.
  Happily, my constituent's wife stood by him—he now has two fine children and is trying desperately to rebuild his life—but the conviction has stuck with him. Why am I saying all this to the House? Because the demure young lady who appeared in court was not quite the same young lady whom others had seen on the streets of my constituency, enjoying herself in a variety of ways at a variety of times of the day and night. I put it no higher than that. To say that such a person's sexual history could not or should not be allowed as evidence in any future case would, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, prejudice the course of justice.
  442
  I am deeply concerned that there is an atmosphere abroad that militates against the defendant and virtually says that the moment a man is in the dock accused of rape he is guilty, and the complainant is automatically a victim. In many vile cases that is so, but not in every case. Members of the Standing Committee should satisfy themselves and the House that, in doing what, in broad terms, we all want done, we are not damaging what my right hon. and learned Friend rightly described as the absolute duty of the court to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial.
  The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) rightly drew attention to the problem of child sexual abuse. There is another case in my constituency in which we believe that a very young child has been abused. The Crown Prosecution Service cannot proceed with the case because of the child's age, which is under five. That almost inevitably means that the abuser, if that is what the person in question is, will go free.
  I urge those who serve on the Standing Committee—I will not, because I will be serving on another-to study the matter extremely carefully and consider giving the courts and the CPS wider powers to use discretion, rather than just assuming that, because a child is below a certain age, he or she cannot give evidence. I believe that, if the Committee can do that, and pay attention to the other issues that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have raised, it will come back with a Bill that we shall all be able to support on Third Reading.
  5.20 pm
  Ms Margaret Moran: I hope that the House will accept my apologies for the fact that I could not be present at the beginning of the debate, because of unexpected parliamentary business. I have been impressed by the quality and thoughtfulness of that part of the debate that I have been privileged to attend, and it is with some trepidation that I stand up to speak. I know that, as has been said already, the Bill has been comprehensively discussed in another place by many honourable and very learned members of the legal profession, who have raised many important legal points. I shall not cover those myself, largely because I have no legal background.
  What I have to say derives primarily from my keen interest in the work of the youth justice system in Luton, where we are testing a youth justice pilot, and from my experience of working with women and children who have been subject to violence and abuse. I am proud to have had the opportunity to meet and talk to the representatives of Victim Support, and to have seen the excellent and valuable work of the Luton witness protection scheme.
  I have also seen some of the pioneering work that was the precursor to the youth justice pilot scheme that the Government have introduced, which was carried out by a partnership project involving the local authority, the police, business and the Safer Luton partnership. Some of the work being done in Luton to prevent youth crime leads me to believe that the measures in part I will be valuable in tackling some of the issues that are not at present being addressed.
  I recently had the opportunity to see one of our youth courts in action, dealing with a young local offender. The judge asked the lad, "Have you ever appeared before me

  443
  in court before?" The lad replied, "Dunno. What time do you get up?" That episode summarised the way in which the courts relate to young offenders and confuse both them and many of the other people who participate in the process.
  That is why the measures in the Bill that focus on prevention and restorative justice for first-time offenders are so important. The introduction of non-criminal youth offender panels and the involvement of young people in taking responsibility for their actions are both radical and vital if we are to have a significant effect in reducing new crime.
  Our experience in Luton leads me to believe that it is crucial that the measures work seamlessly with those in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. So far, five parenting orders have been issued in Luton. Those have been linked to provision for parenting classes, for which the Home Office has provided start-up grants. In addition, we now have bail support workers and development workers for youngsters who might otherwise have been remanded in custody.
  A great deal of work is being done to prevent young offenders from reoffending, but the missing link, as my constituents, especially those in Caddington and Stopsley would say, is a means of tackling first-time offenders without requiring them to go through the courts system, which has the potential to turn them into young criminals. There is evidence that that has happened in the past. Part I will provide that element.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister considers the implementation of the Bill, I hope that he will recognise the impact of the new duties, especially in administrative and management functions, on youth offending teams. We must ensure that the provisions already in place work seamlessly and recognise the extra work that the Bill will make for youth offending teams.
  It is to the great credit of the Government that they are introducing the measures in part II to protect vulnerable and intimidated witnesses, as recommended in "Speaking up for Justice". It is nothing short of a tragedy that some of the recommendations in the Piggott report in 1989 and the Utting report in 1997—which addressed the need to ensure greater safeguards for the most vulnerable members of our community in the face of a complex legal system—were not enacted by the previous Government. This Government are to be commended for moving swiftly to implement our manifesto commitment to ensure that greater protection is given at trial to victims of rape and serious sexual offences and to ensure that those who have been subject to intimidation, including witnesses, are protected by the legal system.
  In the past, the system for trying rape cases has failed victims, predominantly women, because access to justice has been denied to them by the enormous legal and psychological obstacles that exist. The current practice, which allows extensive cross-examination of women by the alleged rapist, is nothing short of cruel and degrading. Rape, violence and sexual abuse against women and children must be seen as different from other forms of crime and the law should recognise that. Such abuses are usually about power relationships. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, the legal system reinforces that power imbalance in that women are subjected to what has been
  444
  described as a second violation in court at the hands of their alleged attacker or even at the hands of those who are part of the legal system. Therefore, it is crucial that the Bill offers protection to women and children in those circumstances.
  In rape cases, women feel guilty and insecure. As other hon. Members have vividly described, a woman in those circumstances has had her whole essence violated. She must be sure that the law will protect her and prevent intimidation, but that is not the current experience of women. An audit carried out a few years ago in Luton by the Safer Luton partnership found that there was widespread under-reporting of rape and sexual abuse cases. The Luton and district rape crisis centre, which is one of the oldest in the country, told me that, in the year to March 1998, it had 307 calls from victims of rape or attempted rape. Some 128, 47 of whom were men, of those were seen and counselled. Of those 128, only 21 incidents were reported to the police. That is a tragically low reporting level and it means that women are not confident that the system will bring to justice the perpetrator of their rape and assault.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady's comments have some force and I would not wish to pretend otherwise. However, has she considered that the process of going to the police station, being taken into the rape suite and undergoing a forensic examination, is inherently distressing and that, as much as the prospect of attending a criminal trial, weighs with prospective complainant?
  Ms Moran: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is why we need to ensure that there is greater training for the police and members of the legal system to ensure that women who undergo undoubtedly the most traumatic experience of their lives have proper support.
  However, it is obvious from women who have been counselled by the Luton and district rape crisis centre that they are prevented from seeking justice by the experience that they will have to face in court. That crisis centre feels obliged to tell women fully and frankly what they will experience so as to ensure that they do not embark on a judicial process that will cause further damage to that which is already unutterably devastating for women. That is a second terrible process. Women are rightly advised that they might face a further interrogation which will bring back all the memories and recent hurt of the incident, and that prospect prevents women from having recourse to the judicial system. That is why the Bill is so important.
  The fact that a woman's previous sexual history is explored and that she is interrogated on that means that justice may be denied to her from the outset. Women will have a variety of reasons for not reporting or proceeding with a case, but the current legal system is a major influence on women's decision to proceed or not.
  Of those women who report rape, fewer then one in 10 see their attacker convicted. In Luton last year, 31 reported rape and attempted rape cases were dealt with by the police, of which only nine were detected.
  There is clearly a problem of lack of training in the legal system. There is a long wait between the incident and the court case and women feel that they have insufficient support during the process, particularly

  445
  insufficient information, especially when the Crown Prosecution Service is involved. That means that women's confidence in the system is undermined. That needs to be addressed every bit as much as the legal issues that we are debating today.
  The Luton and district rape crisis centre told me that it can be extremely damaging, personally and psychologically, for a woman to be interrogated in court. It cited one case where the fact that a woman had gone for counselling between the incident and the hearing was used against her in court to imply that she had been tutored to lie about that incident.
  In such circumstances, it is no wonder that 41 per cent. of women interviewed by Victim Support in 1996 said that they felt that they were on trial rather than the defendant, and that many felt re-victimised by the court process.
  On average, cross-examination in a rape case is twice as long as in other trials, and, despite the fact that judges have a discretion to disallow evidence of sexual history, it is still used in 75 per cent. of rape trials. That is why we cannot simply rely on the good will and best view of the judge. Women in such circumstances need legal protection.
  Luton's Victim Support told me of one case where a 20-year-old woman endured an abnormally long and, in its view, unreasonable cross-examination at Luton Crown court. Despite the fact that she was a virgin, her sexual history was widely discussed. As a result, she had a nervous breakdown during the trial and the jury returned a hung verdict. Because of her experience of the dreadful interrogation she would not allow the case to go to re-trial, so it was lost. The final indignity was that, as a result, her criminal injury claim had to be cut by 50 per cent. In such cases the credibility of the criminal justice system is undermined and rapists walk free, perhaps to rape again.
  Will the measures in part II prevent such injustices? The answer is broadly, yes. I welcome them, but I agree with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have said that, in some respects, the Bill does not seem to offer sufficient protection even when a balance is struck between the rights of the defendant and of the accuser in the legal process. The most important issue concerns the matter of previous sexual history. If no is to mean no, a woman's previous sexual history must not be used as evidence of her consent in any circumstances. As a lay person, I feel that those provisions seem to offer too many loopholes to the court to allow such evidence.
  In particular, clause 40(3)(b)(ii), which was introduced in the other place, seems to fall into the trap of implying that evidence of a strikingly similar behaviour could be admissible at the court's discretion. There could be grave dangers in undermining the excellent intent of the Bill by that clause. It is regrettable that the provisions of the New South Wales legislature, which lists circumstances in which such evidence is admissible, is not considered for inclusion in the Bill. Although I understand the reasons why that may be the case, we could amend the Bill in ways to improve the protection of vulnerable women.
  Similarly clause 40(3)(a), which allows in certain circumstances such evidence where the defence argues that the perpetrator had an honest belief in consent, opens up a whole arena which could undermine worthy attempts to protect women. I hope that we shall have some opportunity to strengthen those provisions. I urge the
  446
  Government to look closely at an amendment to the substantive law on the definition of rape. That is one of the problems that we are encountering here and, although it is outside the scope of this Bill, that review is needed urgently.
  In conclusion, I have two questions to ask the Minister on clause 17 and the provision of special measures. As other hon. Members have said so excellently, victims need certainty about this provision of protection. Can the Minister clarify that the courts will be encouraged to provide such protection for women who have suffered from domestic violence? In those circumstances, the need of women for protection from harassment and intimidation is often as great in the court as elsewhere. I hope that he can confirm that the courts will be encouraged to allow that protection for women in those circumstances.
  My second question relates to child abuse. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) about the inadequacy of legislation to protect children from sexual abuse. Can the Minister clarify whether the provisions in the Bill will assist in the prosecution of greater numbers of offenders, particularly where the children are aged five or under? Recently I was appalled and angry when I dealt with a constituency case in which the family and a child of five have been traumatised by the process of giving evidence to the police and dealing with the Crown Prosecution Service, only to be doubly traumatised by being told that, because the child is five and is unable to give proper evidence in court, the case will not proceed. That not only leaves the child feeling that it has been found guilty of lying, and traumatises the family, but potentially allows child abusers repeatedly to abuse children aged five and under without proper redress.
  I understand from the mother that the child protection service in our area has advised her that fewer than 10 per cent. of cases involving children aged five or under are successfully brought to court, and that fewer such cases are successfully prosecuted. It cannot be right that protection of the most vulnerable in our society—those who have most difficulty in articulating their problems and who need our protection most—is denied. I hope that the Minister will confirm that, under the Bill, the Government will do their utmost to ensure that, in so far as possible, such a situation is never allowed to happen again.
  I commend the Bill. It is important; it introduces radical measures to prevent youth crime and redresses some long-standing injustices concerning vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. I hope that we have the opportunity to improve and refine those measures further, and so ensure that we afford the most vulnerable the greatest possible protection.
  5.41 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We should examine the Bill in the light of Labour's election promises, especially those on women, with which I appreciate several hon. Members have dealt in detail. In the run-up to the election, the Labour party made a great deal of its promises to women to improve their position when they are brought to court in sexual offence cases.

  447
  At the Labour party's October conference, the Home Secretary said:
  "All too often, the prospect of intrusive and unnecessary cross-examination in court is too much for many women."
  I hope that, in Committee, that will cause him to pay particular attention to clauses 40 and 41, which leave very large loopholes through which protection can be abused. Clever defence lawyers will find many ways around the legislation, allowing continued humiliation and discrediting of victims of sexual crimes. If the Government fail to tighten up the Bill in that respect, they will have failed to honour the promises that they made in the run-up to the election.
  I am also concerned about the report of the statement by the Labour party's women's unit, which is headed by Baroness Jay, and to which the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) referred. It implies that a woman's behaviour during sexual activity should be used as a means of undermining her case that she did not give her consent. Whether she screams and kicks in her normal sexual activity is deemed in the report to be a possible relevant cause of a man declaring that he honestly believed that she was consenting. I raised in an intervention the point that one can interpret that the other way around: if a woman remains passive during an attack in order to protect herself, she could equally be accused of giving consent.
  In many countries, consideration of a woman's sexual history in such cases—and of a man's in cases of gay rape—is banned. I raised the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and he rightly put me in my place by stating that I was referring to matters relating to defendants, not witnesses. I am sure that it does not need to be said, after everything that has been said in the House today, that the woman who is the victim, or the plaintiff, or as my right hon. and learned Friend referred to her, the witness, is often treated almost as if she was the defendant, such is the venom of the cross-examination that she has to undergo.
  Although I understand that lawyers like to see things in a clear, objective, cut-and-dried fashion, a large element of humanity must be considered in the conduct of proceedings in our courts. There must be a limitation on the prurience that such cases attract. The Government's report "Speaking up for Justice" said that judges allowed up to 75 per cent. of defence applications to cross-question the victim on her sexual history in ways that seemed
  "to go far beyond that demanded in the interests of relevance and … fairness to the defendant."
  That is the same as saying that the victim, witness or plaintiff—I prefer to use that word because it is slightly less emotive—is treated unfairly. She is the complainant, but she is treated as if she was the defendant. The courts and the legal profession have to take that into account.
  We still live in a country in which the long history of the treatment of woman lingers on. A woman's freedom to engage in sexual activity is always considered to be more limited than that of a men. That hangover is the reason why women's sexual history becomes such a potent part of rape trials. The same applies to some extent in cases of child abuse. The prurient element is often very detrimental to the victim.
  448
  I am sure that there are people here today who are barristers—not least my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—who could explain why sexual abuse cannot be considered as grievous bodily harm. To do so would remove a great deal of the emotive aspect. A woman who is raped is physically and, if you like, mentally abused, but she is being abused. If we leave the sexual element out, we might consider such cases in a more objective way. The same applies to what is normally called domestic violence, which is simply grievous bodily harm. However, because it is domestic, there is always a suggestion that the woman somehow connived at the treatment that she received. I go back to the point that that is a big flaw in the remarks attributed to the Labour party's women's unit. I urge the women on the Government Benches to take that up. I believe that they should correct the attitude that is inherent in those remarks. I believe that it is inherent generally in the way in which we consider such matters.
  The courts have an unhappy history of treatment of women in rape cases. As we have already said, many women do not go to court because they know how women are treated in such cases. A great deal of that stems from a widespread hangover of sexist attitudes in our society. It is good to remember that women were considered almost as chattels until recent times. They had almost no rights in marriage and certainly no property rights. Sexist attitudes still prevail.
  If hon. Members think that it is just me saying that, I urge any of them who have five minutes to spare to take a look at the book by Jill Seward, the victim in the Ealing vicarage rape case. Three males were involved, two of whom abused her in what even the judge referred to as a foul and disgusting way. They were given five-year sentences. A little bit was added on because they were there to commit a burglary. Nevertheless, one of those men was out after three years and the other served less than his five-year sentence. That is not uncommon. Many soft sentences are handed down by geriatric judges in our courts, often in cases that involve women and their sexual lives. Our courts are besmirched as a result of that and they need to do something about it. The Bill must deal with sentencing and the length of sentences.
  After the vicarage rape case, Lord Lane, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, said that the sentences had been too lenient. That is not surprising, because the third man in that case, who did not take part in the rapes, but was involved only in the burglary, got 14 years. That contrast shows that the courts make dreadful mistakes, however learned the individuals who serve the courts may be and despite their elevation to the status of judges. Those mistakes are an abuse of the people who appear before the courts.
  We listen to such learned gentlemen who usually occupy the Front Benches of this Chamber when it comes to legal matters; they are usually appointed Home Secretary or shadow Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is an honourable exception.
  Mr. Hogg: Or the shadow Home Secretary-what about my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)?
  Mrs. Gorman: There are exceptions. However, the point is that such learned gentlemen do not always get it right; they lecture us in this place and sometimes attempt to intimidate us.
  I should like the Bill to deal with the power of sentencing. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that it is possible for the Director of Public Prosecutions to lay down consistent penal policy and sentencing that would be reflected in courts throughout the country. Judges would have strong guidelines on the policy in such cases.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I want to make one small point before the hon. Lady goes completely off track and reduces the good points that she made earlier. The Director of Public Prosecutions has no power at any time to direct the level of sentencing. That is for the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal.
  Mrs. Gorman: If I may say so, that is a typical legal intervention and an attempt to humiliate the witness, plaintiff, or victim—as I consider myself to be. [Interruption.] I am now informed by the more gentle counsels of my colleagues that I should have been talking about the Court of Appeal.
  However, as a lay person, I make the point that sentences are much too varied and, in the majority of rape cases, they are far too lenient. I hope that the Committee will deal with the issue of the sentences that are handed down by the courts.
  It is about time that we had more women judges, who could influence the law. That is a tangential point and I realise that it is not specifically covered in the Bill, but as this is a Second Reading debate and I can say what I like, I shall say it again. I believe that that point is reflected in the general attitude to women in our courts. I make no excuses for putting the women's perspective because our courts are far too heavily dominated by men. There are sensitive issues about people's personal behaviour, their right to their personal behaviour and the abuses that they often sustain because they are less informed or less articulate and more easily humiliated. We need the advice of a woman in deciding on the laws of our country as they apply in such cases.
  When the Bill reaches Committee, I hope that the Government will reconsider clauses 40 to 42 and address the concerns that have been brought to my attention by a group of more than 200 organisations, headed by Women Against Rape, and including Victim Support and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Those organisations have stated that they feel "let down" by the Bill. I am sure that Ministers feel suitably chastised and humiliated by the fact that all those worthy bodies feel that the Bill is not up to the mark, and that they will take the opportunity in Committee to do something to meet those concerns.
  I am sure that the details of those concerns are well known to the Government, and I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary, but I feel strongly that both the public's attitude to rape cases and victimisation of plaintiffs by the courts themselves are issues that should concern the law and be reflected in the Bill.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I declare an interest as a recorder of the Crown court, a lawyer and one who has, for some years, sat as an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate. I suppose that that makes me a geriatric judge—
  Mr. Boateng: Not geriatric.
  Mr. Matins: That is kind of the Minister. Nevertheless, I feel that I should apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for being a geriatric judge.
  Over the years, I have had to sentence many young people and contend with many vulnerable witnesses, so I recognise that issues raised in the Bill are extremely important and I am happy to give the Bill a broad welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Basildon (Angela Smith) said that the vast majority of young people in this country behave impeccably, have nothing to do with the criminal courts and contribute greatly to our society. They were absolutely right to say so, but I believe that they would agree that young people today are growing up in a dangerous and difficult world—one more dangerous and difficult than it was, say, 30 years ago.
  In today's world, young people are exposed, often too young, to aspects of life that would be better met when they are older. Influenced by an often malevolent and irresponsible media, they witness more family break-ups than ever before. They see fragmentation of community and family life—how many youngsters today live within a few yards of their grandparents? Housing conditions in our inner cities are often grim, and the prospects of obtaining or retaining a job are less sure than they were previously. Drugs—the greatest evil facing our criminal justice system—are commonplace.
  That is why it is so important to prevent a child from embarking on a criminal career. A good home and family, a good education, the prospect of a job, plenty of sport at school, discipline, pride, self-esteem and, perhaps most important, literacy are all factors that can help youngsters to stay away from crime. The other side of the coin is the youngster who regularly appears before me in court. The odds are that he comes from a broken home, and, as happens so often, he has no parents in court to support him—a situation referred to by the hon. Member for Basildon. He is illiterate, he has no pride and no job and he has probably dabbled in drugs. At school, this typical young man truanted regularly. The prospects for him are bleak.
  Anything that the House can do, not only to prevent offending in the first place, but to prevent re-offending by young people, must be done. Therefore, the Opposition approach the Bill in a spirit of co-operation with the Government, because it is important that we work together on those issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale dealt at some length with the important new sentence of referral to a youth offender panel. We believe that is a sensible, forward-looking measure. The terms of the contract under clause 8 are sensible and will impose great obligations on a defendant. However, I must make two points. First,

  451
  I speak as a sentencer when I say that it is surely right that sentencers be given a wide discretion as to the circumstances in which that sentence is used.
  It is quite wrong in principle to remove the court's discretion and impose the sentence of referral to a youth offender panel whenever there is a guilty plea by a first offender who is not to be given a custodial sentence or discharged absolutely. My hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made the same point. By the time they come to sentencing, lay magistrates, stipendiaries and judges have all the facts of the case before them. They have a feel for the case and for the defendant and his or her circumstances. It is almost inevitable that they will have ordered a pre-sentence report to assist them in forming a view about the sentence. As they know so much, they should surely be the ones to decide whether it is appropriate to implement this sentence in any one case rather than having Parliament apply a straitjacket to the courts. As I said earlier, that would be quite wrong.
  Sentencers who may have decided to fine or conditionally discharge a young person who appeared before them will know that, if they do anything other than absolutely discharge or give a custodial sentence, they will have to pass the child to a panel. In those circumstances, they might be tempted to hand down what they believe to be the wrong sentence and opt for an absolute discharge—even though they wanted to do something else.
  Secondly—and most important—the sentence must have teeth if it is to work. A problem associated with community sentences, such as community service, is that, if the defendant fails to co-operate and breaches the order, the court's powers are very limited when the defendant returns to court. Very little happens in practice. The court has been powerless to deal with a defendant who has breached a community service order—the Home Affairs Committee has said something about that problem—and has been able only to impose a fine or to order the order to continue.
  What sanctions should be imposed if a young person fails utterly to co-operate with the youth offender panel? The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) mentioned that point in passing. He was clearly a social worker and, judging from his speech, knows a great deal about this topic. Hon. Members appreciated hearing his views. When a referral is made and the youth offender panel is organised, what will happen if the defendant says that he will not co-operate and turns his back on the whole idea? Under the Bill, it appears that he will simply be referred back to the court and sentenced in another way.
  Despite the Home Secretary's remarks at the beginning of his speech, that sentence will almost certainly not include custody, as the youngster will have been referred to the panel in the first place only because a custodial sentence was considered inappropriate. By all means, let us give the young offender guidance and help. However, he should know that a failure to co-operate and play his part to the full will have severe consequences. In short, I believe that the breach of an order should mean an immediate return to court and an inevitable custodial sentence.
  Mr. Bermingham: I declare an interest in the debate. I have 30 years' experience in the courts, and I witnessed
  452
  the shift from the 1960s towards custodial-based sentencing in the 1970s. There was then a brief respite under the Baker reforms—as I call them—when we moved away from custody and the community penalties. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a child who may have problems beyond his control—perhaps parental, family or even medical problems—should receive a custodial sentence when he breaches an order that may have been imposed without full knowledge of his circumstances? If so, we are moving back to the bad practice of considering custody first and everything else second.
  Mr. Malins: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's distinguished career in the law and accept that he makes a serious point. However, I am saying that, when a court makes an order, be it a community service or a referral order, there must be a sanction against the person who, in effect, breaches that order wilfully. He should know that custody will result from breaching the order. By all means give a chance or give help, but there must be teeth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that argument. We need to drive home to youngsters the difference between right and wrong. I hope that, in Committee, the Bill will be amended to give the courts the strongest powers on any breach.
  We must be careful that our youth justice system does not become too bureaucratic, too cumbersome and too expensive, thereby involving a disproportionate number of people. I think it was the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) who expressed some concern about the extra work load involved not only in the implementation of this Bill but in the implementations of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It is well known that the volume of paperwork, including various reports, that shuffles round the youth court is far too much. The Crime and Disorder Act imposed a vast array of duties and thereby expenses on local authorities, the police and the probation service. Those bodies are already starved of funds. What implications does the Minister think that the Bill will have for those services? Will he talk about the Bill's financial and manpower implications? The matter was referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre when he talked about resources.
  The second part of the Bill introduces a number of special measures to help witnesses in criminal proceedings. We are talking of witnesses who may find the process difficult, who may be overawed, or who may be reluctant, perhaps because of fear. A number of hon. Members have spoken about these measures with feeling. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), who served with some distinction on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, had something to say about young witnesses. We valued her contribution. The hon. Member for Luton, South also feels strongly about witness protection measures.
  Some of the measures—for example, the use of screens to shield the witness from the accused, evidence by live video link and the removal of wigs by judges—are already widely used in our courts, and to pretty good effect. Their extension is to be given a cautious welcome. I say "cautious" because a balance needs to be struck between competing rights. Yes, the witness has rights and should, as far as possible, be protected. Equally, the accused—let it never be forgotten that he is innocent until proved guilty—has rights, and so do the public. Was it my right

  453
  hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) who said that the most important person in a court case of a criminal nature is the defendant?
  For those reasons, I think that we should approach with some care the issue of special measures to help witnesses in criminal proceedings. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has a long and distinguished career as a solicitor dealing with criminal work, had something to say about the important issue of the rights of the various parties in a court case. The proposed measures need carefully to be examined in Committee.
  I shall refer briefly to clause 27 and the video-recording of cross-examination. I feel that we are stepping into dangerous territory. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham had something to say about the issue of cross-examination. There is no doubt that cross-examination is worth while only if it takes place live, with the counsel who conducts it being aware of what has happened in the case up to that moment. Cross-examination by video before the case started would not be a helpful development, as my right hon. and learned Friend argued. Let us consider those measures carefully in Committee, and let us hope that any extension of measures will be used sparingly by the courts when they come into force.
  Again, we need to examine cost and practicalities. How many youth and Crown courts does the Minister plan to equip with screens and video links? How long will the process take? What is the expected cost of those measures? Will extra money be provided, or will it have to be found within existing budgets?
  One of the most important clauses in the Bill is clause 33, which provides that defendants charged with rape or other sexual offences who choose to conduct their own defence may not cross-examine the alleged victim of the offence. Several hon. Members commented on that, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay.
  In general terms, the clause has our support, but the Minister should take on board the fact that concerns have been expressed not only in another place but by senior members of the legal profession. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—perhaps I should apologise to the House for quoting three lawyers—expressed concern about clause 33 and succeeding clauses in terms of the rights of the defendant.
  Some have argued that the provisions of clause 33 and subsequent clauses are contrary to human rights legislation. Is the Minister satisfied that there is no such conflict? It may be worth introducing an amendment in Committee to the effect that the judge should have power in an exceptional case to grant leave to the unrepresented defendant to put his own questions. I urge the Minister to consider that with the greatest care. I recognise that, in the cases under discussion, the court will appoint a barrister to act for the defendant, but difficulties could arise if the defendant fails to co-operate with a barrister instructed on his behalf.
  Clause 37 illustrates the position and reminds us that where, under clauses 33 to 35, the defendant is prevented from cross-examining, the court will appoint a barrister to
  454
  act for him if he wants one. What happens if he does not want one? The court will appoint a barrister itself. However, once appointed, that barrister has no duty of care towards the defendant and is not responsible to him. One fears the prospect, albeit remote, of miscarriages of justice. Who knows what effect such a saga in court might have on a jury, who might take a view about what is going on and bring in a guilty verdict—
  Mr. Hogg: To develop the point a little, does my hon. Friend agree that a line of cross-examination might be pursued by the barrister retained by the court for the benefit of the defendant that was inconsistent with the defendant's line when he went into the witness box? That would be extremely prejudicial to the defence.
  Mr. Malins: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. There is no guarantee that the barrister who is instructed by the court to look after the defendant's interest will do so, try hard though he or she might. I know that the Minister recognises that those are serious matters. I appreciate that they might arise only in a very rare case, but they will need to be examined in Committee.
  Clause 40, which deals with sexual offences, restricts the ability to introduce, or to ask questions about,' any sexual behaviour of the complainant. Will the Minister perhaps comment a little more on clause 40(3)(b), which tells us that questions can be asked about the sexual behaviour of the complainant if the so-called parallel behaviour took place
  "at or about the same time"
  as the event in question, and if the similarity between those two sets of behaviour cannot be reasonably explained as a coincidence? What does
  "at or about the same time"
  mean? Does it mean 24 hours? Would it not be wiser and more sensible to have a much wider time frame? Again, the imposition of such a time frame on the court is over-restrictive and will have to be examined again in Committee.
  By imposing restrictions on reporting alleged offences involving persons under 18, clause 43 gives much-needed protection, and we welcome it. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said something about the issue. As always on these matters, he spoke with sense, experience and force. I am glad to see the inclusion of the public interest defence and the factors that contribute to that defence, which strike an appropriate balance, but, again, those matters will have to be examined carefully in Committee.
  I began by saying that many youngsters grow up in a difficult world. The fact that a committed number of us are in the House establishes that, across the parties, there are hon. Members who have a passionate interest in our criminal justice system. We all believe that preventing a child from embarking on a criminal career by diverting him from crime and by grasping the problem early is important.
  Does the House feel that not just the Home Office but every Department of State has a job to do in relation to young offenders? Those in government and local authorities who have anything to do with housing, education or health can, and must, play some part.
  Diversion is important. First-time offenders need to be confronted with the reality of what they have done. I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee when it spent

  455
  a day with Thames Valley police to learn more about restorative justice. The Home Secretary referred in positive terms to that police force's work. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole referred to the important issue of victims in our criminal justice system, as did the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
  As we learned during the visit to Thames Valley police, restorative justice is all about the conferences' involving young criminals, their victims and their families. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole was right to say, or imply, that making youngsters have contact with the victim—if the victim wants it—does not just help the youngster but helps the victim to overcome the fear that he or she has felt.
  I learned about the importance of making a young person realise what pain and suffering a crime can cause. All hon. Members should be impressed by the work of Thames Valley police and hope that it is extended throughout the country, because benefits will undoubtedly result.
  I may have doubts about certain parts of the Bill. I wonder whether the costs and sheer bureaucracy of it may be too much. I may be concerned that some parts of the Bill appear to take away powers from the courts and to limit their discretion too much, but none of those concerns is enough to stop me from giving the Bill a broad welcome. It was correct to say, in a spirit of cross-party co-operation, that the Bill may need looking at. I appreciate what the Home Secretary said in that respect. Like us, the Home Secretary and the Minister acknowledge that youth crime must be dealt with by us all in a non-party political way. We can be sensitive and constructive, but I conclude by reminding the House that, above all, youngsters need discipline and strong ethical guidance, as well as the knowledge that, although the law may be there to help, as it should be, it is also there to punish—and to punish harshly when appropriate. We have a big task ahead and I look forward to playing a very small part in it.
  6.20 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I welcome the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) to the Front Bench. He has made an important debut in an important debate and he will bring a welcome fund of wisdom and experience, both professional and judicial, to our deliberations here and in Committee. Where possible, we must build on the consensus in the House and in the country about the need to focus on youth crime.

  The Bill is about balance. We must restore the balance that has been lost over the years between the defendant and the victim in court. Having listened to the Conservative contributions, particularly that from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I believe that, to a certain extent, they have got the balance wrong over the years. In government, the Conservatives did not give the attention that we are determined to give to the victims of crime. One aim of the Bill is to rectify that imbalance. Some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), believe that the time has come to give the victim a better deal in our courts. We are determined that that will happen.
  456
  The Bill is ambitious and radical. It is ambitious in its aim of a fundamental change in the way in which we deal with first-time young offenders and witnesses. The underlying philosophy of the Bill is the radical belief that the victims and witnesses of criminal offences are key participants in the criminal justice system. Victims, witnesses and defendants must be at the heart of the criminal justice process. If justice does not serve witnesses and victims as well as it serves defendants, it fails. We are determined not to allow that.
  Such a radical change means achieving a proper balance between the rights of defendants and the interests of the rest of society in ensuring that crime is reported, prosecuted and punished. Victims of crime, particularly rape victims, are deterred from complaining by the thought of the cross-examination that they will be subject to if they do so. That leads to an unacceptable rate of attrition in the criminal justice system in relation to the offence of rape.
  Part I focuses on dealing effectively with young offenders, using the principles of restorative justice to get to the root of their offending behaviour when appropriate, and intervening early. It is important that we get it right. Our considerations in Committee will be vital to our success, as will proper reflection on the piloting that has characterised our approach to many of our proposals.
  The Government have taken swift and effective action against youth offenders. Piloting of the main youth justice reforms has been under way in 10 areas since September 1998, and the figures for the period up to 31 January 1999 show that the pilots have started well. There have been 1,435 reprimands, 769 final warnings, 200 reparation orders, 102 action plan orders and 12 parenting orders.
  Important points have been made—especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), but also by my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and reiterated by the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Woking—on the role of parents in addressing issues of youth offending. We shall expect parents to co-operate in operation of the panels. If they fail to turn up and to take their responsibilities seriously, they may be found to be in contempt of court, from which penalties will flow.
  Flexibility has also been mentioned in the debate, and rightly so. Equally, however, it should be said that some parents are much more part of the problem than they will ever be part of the solution. Those are the tragic circumstances in which so many young people continue to find themselves. In such circumstances, it would be quite wrong to make it mandatory for the panel to have the parents before it when those matters are being considered.
  Therefore, although parents will be required to be present in the majority of cases, there may be some cases, in which children are looked after by the local authority, when, at least initially, it is desirable not to have parents present but away from the proceedings, so that the young person might effectively share the problems that he or she has had to confront growing up.
  I must therefore tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes)—who brings enormous experience of front-line youth work to our debates, and who, I hope, will be helping us in Committee—that, no, we shall not make parents' attendance mandatory when a child is looked after by the local authority.

  457
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House—but particularly the hon. Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Woking—have asked why we should not retain for magistrates a discretion in referrals to panels. It is important to understand what is so radical about our proposals on youth offender panels, which will offer not simply another sentence but an alternative. The entire purpose of our proposals on first-time offenders who have confronted and owned-up to their guilt is to take them entirely out of the criminal justice system. The important and novel feature of our proposals on youth panels, therefore, is that those young people will be offered a very different opportunity.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley, for Basildon and for Stretford and Urmston made the point that we have to ensure—as we shall—that we get the panels' composition right. We are already doing it. We should recognise the work that is already being done—not least in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South—to ensure that the experience that we are gaining from operation of youth offending teams will assist in ensuring that we get the panels' composition right. We believe that those panels will affect about 13,500 offenders each year, and we see, arising from that, savings of about £4.5 million a year. That will help us to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Woking in terms of meeting the costs of the live-link facilities, the video evidence and prohibiting cross-examination in person.
  We will need to return in detail to the matter in Committee. First, our proposal is the most effective way of ensuring that the abuse of the process that has occurred—albeit on a limited number of occasions—never occurs again. We are still living with its legacy; when the woman is obliged to confront the very person who has submitted her to the horror and humiliation of rape, so aptly and appropriately described by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). That must not happen, and I can assure the House that we are satisfied with the proposal. I do not believe that the Lord Chief Justice demurs, and it is certainly the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the measure is fully compliant with our obligations under the European convention on human rights.
  The provision will enable the lawyer appointed by the court to test the evidence; no more. It is not a substitute for proper instructions from a defendant, and we do not pretend that it is. The defendant has made a choice, and has wilfully turned his back on the opportunity to be represented. In those circumstances, our convention obligation, and our obligation to fair process, is to make available to the lawyer all that can possibly be made available to enable the lawyer to test the evidence. That will enable our treaty obligations to be met and our commitment to the fairness of the proceedings to be fulfilled.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity—hopefully in Committee but, if not, on Report—to make his points.
  We believe that our proposals are in the interests of justice, and we believe that the balance is right. That is why we will be seeking to proceed, and why we will seek
  458
  in Committee to reverse the defeat on mandatory referrals in another place. That is not an attack on judicial discretion, but a way of taking forward our radical and appropriate proposals.
  The measures to protect witnesses are again about getting the best evidence. There is flexibility in the measures, and that is why it will not be mandatory for the courts to make any particular safeguard available to a witness. Having seen and heard the witness and assessed his degree of vulnerability, and being aware of the evidence that it will be required to handle and the nature of the charges, it will be for the court to determine what measures should be put in place.
  Those measures will be about protecting the vulnerable, including the very young. We take the point about concerns in relation to young witnesses of, say, five years old, not being able to give their evidence. The court will have discretion to admit such evidence where it is satisfied that the evidence is of value and will serve the interests of justice.
  On cross-examination of previous sexual behaviour, there is a need for balance. We believe that we have got the balance right, and there will be an opportunity to test that in Committee.
  Some of the judicial attitudes that have been exhibited in relation to promiscuity, for instance, are simply not acceptable. That is why the Bill does, indeed, to some extent fetter and limit the discretion of the Bench. In the past, that discretion has been exercised in a way that has not been compatible with the public interest.
  The measures in the Bill will have a real impact on the way in which the criminal justice system serves society. If we can prevent young offenders from becoming tomorrow's career criminals, we will have done society a real service. If we treat witnesses better and improve the quality of evidence that they can bring to trial, we will improve confidence in the criminal justice system. Building that confidence and creating a climate in which people can support the criminal justice system is central to preventing and reducing crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  YOUTH JUSTICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 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 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise 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 under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Pope.]

  Question agreed to.

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

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 24th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]
    Question agreed to.
    Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has come to my notice over the past few weeks that, when there are curtailed speeches—that is, a limit of 10 or 15 minutes—and when Front Benchers are replying to debates, there has grown up a practice of refusal to accept interventions. I have not suffered from it personally but I have sat in my corner and watched it on many occasions. Perhaps you could discuss with Madam Speaker the fact that that practice destroys debate and detracts from the value of the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Today's debate was not time-limited. Interventions are accepted at the discretion of the hon. Member speaking. On time-limited speeches, although it may not be popularly known, interventions can be taken and injury time can be given to the hon. Member concerned.
    Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard that yesterday for the first time. Perhaps it could be made more widely known throughout the House, because many hon. Members are unaware of it, and that has restricted their ability to give way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The ignorance of some hon. Members is absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.
    Mrs. Gorman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the Chair, quite rightly, gives preference to hon. Members who have attended the whole of the debate, so that they can get in their 10-pennyworth, so those who would like to contribute would be well advised to come and sit through the debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Patience is always a virtue in the House, as the hon. Lady well knows.

  Mortgage Brokers
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: The request for this debate originated in the findings of a mystery shopping exercise carried out by Suffolk county council trading standards officers, published at the beginning of this year. But this is not only a Suffolk issue; it is of widespread interest and national importance and concerns millions of people.
  A mortgage is the biggest single financial commitment in most people's lives. For most of the British people, more of their money is wrapped up in mortgages than in anything else. Ours is a country with a high percentage of home ownership. It is essential to have a system that is fair to consumers, providing them with good value for money and protecting them from being misadvised or exploited in any way.
  A mortgage today is a complex product that comes in a bewildering range of varieties. As the National Consumer Council says:
  "Our research shows that the whole business of getting a mortgage is an absolute minefield for consumers".
  After the scandal of the mis-selling of financial products under the previous Government—in conditions largely generated by them—people are now delighted and relieved that the new Government's manifesto commitment to clean up the mess and provide protection is being implemented.
  The establishment of the Financial Services Authority, the regulation of the sale of investments, and the work done so far on recovery in pensions mis-selling cases, have all been heartening for our people. Yet the question of extending that regulation to mortgages, mortgage lenders and intermediaries, whom I shall call brokers, remains undecided.
  In the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill. the Government are taking reserve powers that would enable them to do that, and I welcome that more. However, because the mortgage code was introduced in July 1997, so soon after the Government came to power, it is understandable that they wish to see first whether a voluntary approach can work, so as to avoid the need for legislation and regulation if possible.
  However, I find it surprising that mortgages were not automatically included, as many mortgages involve a combination of products, including insurance endowments, personal equity plans and so on—products covered by the FSA—and the broker will be selling such packages.
  The key questions are: is the code working, and will it work? The Government will have to decide that later this year. Those who operate the mortgage code register of intermediaries are trying hard. So far, they have registered 20,000 firms and 47,000 brokers, and lenders say that they will not accept business from non-registered brokers.
  Copies of the code have been produced, too, with a useful leaflet called "You and your Mortgage", which, by the end of the month, will be given out at the first point of contact. Qualifications have been devised, and many people are registering to take them, but they are not currently mandatory.

  461
  An arbitration scheme for handling complaints has also been set up, and compliance monitoring strategy is being developed. Some sanctions will be introduced at the end of the month, including formal warnings, fines and deregistration, plus some naming and shaming. Eight brokers have been deregistered so far.
  That is all reasonable and responsible action, but one still has to ask: is it working? Will the code really give the protection that people really need? The only way to find out is to test it, and that is what Suffolk trading standards officers did through their mystery shopping exercise, following an increasing number of complaints.
  The county trading standards officers' findings paint a worrying picture. None of the 31 brokers whom they interviewed complied fully with the mortgage code of practice, and more than half of them failed to promote it or even to mention its existence. A similar proportion failed to disclose whether they would receive a fee for arranging the mortgage, and a similar number failed to declare whether they were acting independently or had access to only a restricted number of lenders.
  In half the interviews attended, poor-quality information was provided, even including incorrect calculations and questionable assumptions about investment growth for linked endowment policies. Officers found that 12 brokers gave financial advice without first determining the customer's attitude to financial risk. Six advisers made so many misleading statements in favour of endowment mortgages that the officers strongly suspected that the motive for the advice was the commission that the adviser would receive from insurance companies, rather than the best interests of customers.
  To be fair, I must tell the House that the officers felt that 58 per cent. of brokers volunteered some good advice in the interviews, but that leaves 42 per cent. who did not. It does not alter the officers' overall findings.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the practices discovered in Suffolk are common throughout the country and reflected in almost every independent examination of the industry? Because endowment mortgages are now discredited, they are disguised as flexible mortgages, and many so-called independent brokers are anything but independent. The situation that my hon. Friend describes is a scandal in the making that could be of epic proportions and equivalent to the pension scandals of the 1980s.
  Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend is right. That scandal in the making has been in evidence for some time and is not confined to Suffolk. Indeed, Suffolk is a relatively law-abiding county with some of the lowest crime rates in the country. Sharp practice and failure to observe the code is certainly not confined to Suffolk. The picture revealed by the mystery shopping exercise is replicated around the country.
  The Consumers Association has also carried out a mystery shopping exercise and reported it in Which? in October. It, too, found evidence of widespread endowment mis-selling and non-compliance with the code. I have also come across another report from Market Audit Research, published last month. That contains the results of its mystery shopping exercise for 61 mortgage lenders. I tried to find out from the report which lenders
  462
  failed to comply with the code, but it was easier to find those who were code compliant—only three, according to that report. For example, 91 per cent. failed to inform the consumer of the service levels offered at the outset. Some 54 per cent. did not include mandatory information when providing quotations or illustrations. Some 60 per cent. did not comply when quoting future repayment amounts at standard variable rates outside the initial, incentivised period. The report concluded that, in certain sections, the code of practice appeared to have been written for the convenience of lenders rather than the assistance and protection of consumers. It did not believe that lenders were complying with the spirit of the code. If a voluntary code is to work, those operating under it must comply with its spirit.
  Another practice, called bundling, also causes concern. It is the practice of tying home insurance policies to the mortgage product. Allegations of such practices come from competitors, but I have personal experience of taking out such an insurance policy and then finding that it is more expensive than those available on the open market. Many people walk into the trap. Although the code prohibits it, it is still happening.
  A report in The Sunday Times on 7 March was headlined:
  "Salesmen admit to dirty tricks on endowments".
  It said:
  "Former staff at several of Britain's leading insurers … have revealed how they were trained to 'frighten' clients into buying endowment mortgages with a variety of slick sales tricks.
  One of the salesmen … said: 'On my first day of training I was told, "If you are not frightening your clients you are not doing your job."'"
  Whoever sold the most would win a day at the races or a champagne dinner.
  Ms Margaret Moran: The selling of endowments is undoubtedly a national scandal with serious implications because home owners rely on a lump sum payment at the end of their mortgage to repay it. If that is not available, home owners could face repossession of their homes. Incentives and fees for brokers have encouraged them, to put it politely, to direct home owners towards a type of mortgage that may be damaging to their future housing prospects and may even lead to homelessness.
  Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend is right. At one time, many people were sold optimistic endowments with monthly payments that anybody advising them should have realised were never likely to generate the amount required when the debt needed to be repaid.
  Out of all the evidence, there emerge two main areas of concern. The first is to do with endowment mis-selling. That is now covered by the Financial Services Authority, but it is still clearly going on. I hope that, when my hon. Friend replies, she will say something about what plans there might be to ensure that the FSA considers compliance there.
  There is evidence that the code is not working in practice. It has some weaknesses. First, there is nothing to define the competence of an individual broker. Anyone with a consumer credit licence and £95 can register. There is no entry test or qualification, and there is still no mandatory qualification once someone is registered.

  463
  The value of registration of the broker depends upon the lender. Lenders have said that they will deal only with registered brokers, but I think that that is questionable, and so do Suffolk county council's trading standards officers, because they found 10 members who made no checks at all.
  Market audit research found that most lenders were not following the code. There is also the question of whether all lenders are, or future lenders will be, members of the Council of Mortgage Lenders. It is more and more likely that foreign banks and lenders, particularly in the European dimension, may be providing the money for mortgages. So there are all kinds of questions there.
  There is also the question of compliance and monitoring. I have not been able to find out how many people the Mortgage Code Register of Intermediaries has working on compliance and monitoring. I suspect that it is not many. I am not sure what it can do given its resources based on the registration fees about which I have spoken. In addition, it has no local knowledge. It relies on a centralised service.
  There are huge question marks over compliance. In December, the MCRI, in its publication, said:
  "All agreed that it would not be economic for MCRI to endeavour to check all of its 19,000"—
  — now 20,000—
  "registered firms every three or four years and accepted that compliance activity should be focused on areas and firms where the potential risk appeared highest."
  There was a suggestion that some of the larger firms had compliance methodologies that could be applied-but again, who decides whether those firms are complying? As I have said, many of them do not comply.
  It can be argued that these are early days. To be fair to the MCRI, it was a big job to take us out of a completely unregulated situation, and it has made progress. One could argue that, over time, compliance will develop and improve. On the other hand, one could also say that, as time passes, it is equally likely that some brokers will find more and more ways to sidestep the code as they become used to it.
  We then come to the question of sanctions. I asked whether the fines under the voluntary code were enforceable. I asked whether the MCRI would expel large firms on which it depends for income, and what would happen to someone who is deregistered. Will they just continue working—often they can—or could they re-register in another capacity?
  What is really alarming about the evidence is the scale of non-compliance in terms of the number of firms and individuals involved and the number of points on which each is not complying. It is not surprising that the National Consumer Council recommends that the regulation of the mortgage business come under the FSA.
  Furthermore, the Treasury Select Committee, when it reported, also came out in favour of regulation by the FSA. From following the discussions of the joint committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, it appears to me that it is heading in that direction.
  It is difficult to see why mortgages should be kept separate from other key parts of the home-buying package, such as endowment PEPs—now ISAs, I think—
  464
  and so on. Why should we think that the voluntary code will work with mortgage selling when it is now widely accepted that such a code could not be trusted to work with the selling of other financial products and services?
  It is not just that similar people are involved. I am not suggesting that all mortgage brokers or financial advisers are at fault; my personal experience of them has been good. Rather, it is that a similar process is involved, in which many customers are unclear, unsure and confused about what they are buying and getting. On the other side, we have the broker or adviser who stands to make various gains depending on the customer's choice or the products sold to him. The test for the broker at each stage of the process must be to ask himself or herself, "Am I acting in the best interests of the customer?" We need to have a system that ensures that the answer is always yes. Statutory regulation focuses minds far better than a voluntary code and, moreover, for longer. My concern is that, over time, a voluntary code would relax.
  There is also a question about the European dimension. Can a voluntary code operate in isolation from Europe? I do not know, but we must have in place a system that can link in with Europe.
  The Suffolk trading standards officers should be congratulated. Their exercise has reverberated around the country. From the evidence that I have seen, it acted as a stimulus to the MCRI, which has come forward with further ideas on compliance and sanctions. I have learned today that the local authority co-ordinating committee of trading standards officers has agreed to carry out 25 mystery shopping exercises later in the year. I hope that they will be conducted in time to inform the Government's review.
  I urge my hon. Friend to use the reserve power in the Bill to regulate mortgage brokers and lenders. I agree with the MCRI that the code should be used as a basis for those regulations and that it has carried out some good work. That work needs the force of law. So much is at stake for individuals that we cannot rely on good intentions and keeping our fingers crossed. People need to have confidence in financial services, including mortgage selling. The code is a worthy step forward, but not enough. People would prefer the protection of law.
  6.57 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this debate on an extremely important subject. I only regret that there are no Members on the Opposition Benches to debate this issue with us. I thank my hon. Friend for visiting me this afternoon, together with Suffolk county council trading standards officers, to ensure that I have the full picture on the extremely useful survey that they carried out.
  As my hon. Friend said, taking out a mortgage and buying a house is one of the biggest financial transactions that most of us ever get involved in. The growing complexity of mortgages means inevitably that there is greater scope for misunderstanding, perhaps for mis-selling and for consumers to get a raw deal. We are determined to ensure that consumers get the protection that they need and deserve in that extraordinarily important financial transaction.
  It may help if I summarise the factual position as it stands. There are some 10.5 million mortgages outstanding at the moment. The number of complaints that

  465
  are made in relation to mortgages are, I am happy to say, small compared with that figure. In 1995, there were 50,000 complaints—about 0.5 per cent. of the total number of outstanding mortgages. Nor is it true to say as some do—I am glad that my hon. Friend did not fall into this trap—that mortgages are wholly unregulated. First of all, more mortgages were brought within the scope of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 when the upper limit was increased to £25,000. All mortgages are subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994, irrespective of the amounts involved. The Office of Fair Trading is considering redemption penalties in relation to compliance with those regulations—
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Jamieson.]
  Ms Hewitt: As my hon. Friend said, many of the complaints about mortgages, like many of those which came to light from the Suffolk county council exercise, relate to endowments that are being sold alongside mortgages, which are of course already regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Because that investment business is already regulated, the majority of intermediaries, who are also advising on mortgages and selling mortgage products, must be authorised by the FSA. So, there is already some protection, both from the FSA and in other parts of the law, for consumers who are buying mortgages and products relating to them.
  Clearly, such protection is not enough. That is why the Council of Mortgage Lenders decided to introduce its code of practice. As my hon. Friend has acknowledged, we are monitoring extremely closely the performance of that code and looking to the Council of Mortgage Lenders to ensure that the provisions are properly enforced by both lenders and intermediaries. As he also acknowledged, it must be right to give that code a fair trial. It has only been in operation for lenders since July 1997 and for intermediaries since April 1998. However, it is essential that we have good information on whether the code is working before we reach a decision about the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill and the scope of its authority.
  I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Suffolk county council trading standards officers on the mystery shopping exercise that they recently conducted. It was an admirable piece of research, and I am extremely grateful to the officers not only for conducting it but for making available to the Council of Mortgage Lenders and, indeed, the Treasury the transcripts of the 31 interviews which were undertaken during it.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that that the results of that mystery shopping exercise are disturbing, because they suggest that all the brokers who were visited were, in some respect or another, failing to comply with the provisions of the code. I have no doubt that the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the MCRI will take the findings extremely seriously—we shall certainly do so. Indeed, detailed transcripts of the six cases in which the trading standards officers concluded that there was evidence to suggest that brokers were in danger of mis-selling endowments along with mortgages have already been referred to the FSA. I understand that the FSA is investigating that matter, as, indeed, the MCRI is investigating the general picture that emerged from all 31 brokers who were visited.
  466
  There are of course differing views on whether mortgages should be brought fully within the scope of the FSA. I shall monitor extremely closely and carefully the operation of the code, as my predecessor undertook to do. I will expect to hear from consumer groups and, as my hon. Friend has said, from other trading standards officers, as well as from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, brokers, intermediaries and lenders themselves. I will also expect the Council of Mortgage Lenders to come forward if it believes that there is evidence that its members and the intermediaries are delivering what the code requires. The onus of proof, in other words, will be on the Council of Mortgage Lenders. It will need to show me what steps it has taken to ensure that the results that were revealed in the exercise, and may have been replicated in others, will not be found in future.
  When we were elected, we inherited a thoroughly unsatisfactory system of financial services regulation. There were nine different regulators, with different ombudsmen and complaints and compensation systems to match. It is not surprising that, as we saw with the personal pensions mis-selling scandal, real threats to the interests of consumers had been allowed to arise in the gaps between the different regulators. Therefore, we announced in May 1997 that we would put financial services regulation on a statutory footing and create a single regulator. We have already begun that process through the Bank of England Act 1998, by transferring banking supervision for the Bank of England to the FSA, thus establishing the authority which has, through a variety of contracts and memorandums of understanding, taken over and absorbed the regulatory functions that previously existed in a variety of other places.
  We are now moving forward with the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill to put the FSA on to a proper statutory basis and give it the powers to make and enforce the rules that are required in the increasingly complex and fast-changing financial services industry. We are also putting in place processes that will protect natural justice and the rights of those who are authorised to sell products as well as the rights of consumers. I am happy to say that the joint committee that is undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill is making extremely good progress. We expect it to report on 29 April. Mortgages is one of the issues to which the joint committee has paid attention.
  Later this year, I will conclude the review of the code of practice on mortgage lending. I certainly hope to have the fruits of the other mystery shopping exercises that trading standards officers in various other parts of the country plan to undertake. I welcome their interest in the matter and their willingness to put time and resources into giving us evidence about whether consumers are getting the protection that they need and deserve from the code.
  I will make a decision later this year about whether the scope of the Bill should include all mortgage selling. The Bill provides for mortgages to be brought within its scope and the scope of the powers of the FSA.
  Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend will appreciate the sense of déjà vu that many of us have. There were no complaints in the late 1980s from those who had been mis-sold personal pensions, but the fact that no complaints were registered did not mean that nothing wrong was going on. Can my hon. Friend give us an undertaking that, when

  467
  she receives the review of the code, she will publish it so that the rest of us can consider it before she takes a decision on it?
  Ms Hewitt: I will certainly publish the evidence upon which I base my decision whether to include mortgages within the scope of the Bill. As I have already said, much of the evidence that will be made available to me in that process of monitoring will in any case be published by those who undertake it. Of course I will happily do as my hon. Friend requests.
  It is important that we establish a modern system of financial services regulation and that we balance the costs and benefits of regulation. Obviously, there are costs involved in regulation. Clearly, if we decide to bring mortgages fully within the scope of the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill and the FSA, the additional costs of regulation will fall on intermediaries and on

  468
  lenders, but, in reality, those costs will ultimately fall on consumers. If we bring mortgages within the scope of the Bill, we shall need to be satisfied that the benefits to consumers outweigh the additional costs that regulation will impose on consumers and providers.
  I shall return to that matter—as, I am sure, will my hon. Friends—later this year, when we have a better picture and more evidence as to how the code is working and we know whether we can rely on more effective enforcement of the code or need statutory regulation to deliver the objective that we all share—effective protection of consumers.
  Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for his concern and interest in this matter. I thank him for drawing the attention of the House to the extremely important survey undertaken by Suffolk's trading standards officers.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Seven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Fuel Duty Increases
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the actual impact of increased fuel duties since 1996 on the generation of pollutants against the estimates made. [78321]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The fuel duty escalator is a long-term strategy whose impact on transport emissions can be expected to build up over time.

  The escalator is also part of a package of measures to reduce emissions, particularly of CO2, through the promotion of fuel efficiency and reduced congestion. Taken on its own, increasing fuel duty by six per cent. per annum in real terms between 1996 and 2002 is currently estimated to reduce 2010 road traffic CO2 emissions by between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon as set out in the Climate Change Consultation Paper.

  However, it is too early to provide an accurate assessment to date of the actual environmental impact of fuel duty increases since 1996, to compare with this estimate.

  Transport Statistics
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what revisions have been made to his Department's forecasts of road traffic and numbers of vehicles as set out in Table 4.8 of Transport Statistics Great Britain 1998 Edition as a result of changes to road fuel duty and vehicle excise duty set out in the Budget. [79346]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: The Department's 1997 National Road Traffic Forecasts already take into account the expected impact of 6 per cent. per annum real increases in fuel duty to 2002 on car use and commercial traffic.

  The changes to Vehicle Excise Duty announced in the Budget are designed to influence the fuel efficiency of vehicles purchased, rather than the total number of vehicles on the road or how much they are used.

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give details of the occasions since 1 May 1997 when his Department has made available to the European Scrutiny Committee unofficial text of draft European legislation. [80501]
  300
  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: The Department receives a large volume of both official and unofficial working texts during the course of negotiations on EU legislation. In order to facilitate the work of the European Scrutiny Committee and to keep it informed of the progress of negotiations, the Department regularly submits Explanatory Memoranda to the Committee. It would involve disproportionate cost to provide a definitive list of the unofficial documents made available to the Committee since 1 May.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 his Department has made available to the European Scrutiny Committee council working documents. [80543]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: The Department receives a large volume of both official and unofficial working texts during the course of negotiations on EU legislation. In order to facilitate the work of the European Scrutiny Committee and to keep it informed of the progress of negotiations, the Department regularly submits Explanatory Memoranda to the Committee. It would involve disproportionate cost to provide a definitive list of the working documents made available to the Committee since 1 May.

  Lead Replacement Petrol
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice will the Government provide to the motoring public on the purchase of lead replacement petrol. [80465]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In December 1998, the Government announced the start of an information campaign to reassure those motorists concerned about the implications of the general withdrawal of leaded petrol by 1 January 2000, in line with EU Directive 98/70/EC, and to inform them of alternatives, such as lead replacement petrol, that will be available. Some 3.5 million information leaflets have been distributed to petrol retailers and MOT garages to date.

  The oil companies are developing their plans for informing and advertising to their customers the availability of lead replacement petrol products well in advance of January 1 and we are consulting with them on the appropriate information to provide to motorists. The Government are aware that there are still many concerned motorists who are unaware of the information that is already available and, therefore, a renewed publicity campaign to raise awareness further is being planned for this summer.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies.[80744]

  Mr. Meale
  "Public Bodies 1998", copies of which are available in the Library of the House, provides information on the levels of remuneration paid, if any, to those serving on the boards of public bodies for which my Department is responsible.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day.[80741]

  Mr. Meale
  Since May 1997, 3,539 questions have to date been tabled for answer on a named day. 81 per cent. have received a substantive answer on that day.

  City Noise Maps
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made on the introduction of city noise maps; what estimate he has made of the costs of such maps; who will be responsible for meeting such costs; and if he will make a statement. [80668]

  Mr. Meale
  My Department has been working with Birmingham City Council, which is mapping the City of Birmingham, to evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of noise mapping as a tool in action. We expect the report of this work, which will assist in estimating the costs of such maps, to be published this summer. The work carried out in Birmingham will help to inform the European Commission's future proposals on ways in which to tackle noise.

  Car Engines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which models of new car currently on sale in the United Kingdom have under 1100cc engines. [78997]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget statement that, from June 1 this year, all new and existing cars of 1100cc or less will be eligible for a £55 reduction in vehicle excise duty. Manufacturers currently producing cars of 1100cc or less include Citroen, Daewoo, Daihatsu, Fiat, Hyundai, Seat, Suzuki, Vauxhall and Volkswagen. Popular cars within this range include the Citroen Saxo, Vauxhall Corsa, Nissan Micra and Volkswagen Polo.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the monitoring arrangements for each of the currently agreed field test sites for genetically modified crops, specifying(a) which sites were subject to pre-planting environmental audits, (b) what sub-surface soil changes are being monitored, (c) what criteria for above-ground environmental impact form part of the field test monitoring and (d) which Government office conducts the monitoring. [78049]

  Mr. Meacher
  The monitoring arrangements for releases of genetically modified organisms are decided on a case by case basis for each consent application. This year, some sites will be used for the farm-scale 302
  evaluations which will compare the effects of the management of genetically modified crops on farmland wildlife with the effects of managing conventional crops.

  The Government have awarded three contracts to study the effects of the management of GM crops on wildlife to a consortium led by the Natural Environment Research Council's (NERC) Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The consortium also includes the Institute of Arable Crop Research and the Scottish Crop Research Institute. Each contract is worth £1.1m; funding is provided wholly by my Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and the Scottish Office.

  The evaluations, which will take four years, will ensure that the managed development of the introduction of genetically modified crops announced at the House of Lords European Communities Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last October, will take place safely. The evaluation programme will help address the concerns which have been raised by English Nature and the Royal Society of the Protection of Birds. We need to get reliable evidence to help us decide whether the management of generically modified herbicide tolerant crops could have the potential to accelerate the decline in farmland wildlife which has taken place over the last 50 years.

  In order to make comparisons between the GM and non-GM crops, the sites identified for the research in 2000 will be subject to pre-planting sampling and analysis. The research will look at the effects of the management of GM and non-GM crops on the soil; for example earthworm population monitoring provides a good indicator of the structure and fertility of the soil. Above ground environmental impact will be studied, again by carrying out surveys of plant populations and invertebrates.

  This research will not only address issues relating to genetically modified crops. This is an extremely important opportunity to contribute towards a more detailed understanding of the effects of agricultural management practices on farmland wildlife generally.

  This research will be monitored by an independent steering committee of experts which is currently being set up and will report to the Secretary of State; the results will be made widely available.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Council how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80735]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Of the 85 questions answered since May 1997, which were tabled for a named day answer, 85 per cent. (72) received an answer on that day.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the public appointments for which her
  303
  Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80750]

  Appointment

  Remuneration

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society

  Chairman of the Statutory Committee

  £322per day

  Inspectors

  £26,357—£32,942p.a.

  Examiners (non-pharmacists)

  £150 per day

  British Broadcasting Corporation

  Chairman

  £67,780 p.a.

  Vice-Chairman

  £17,910 p.a.

  National Governor

  £17,910 p.a.

  Governor

  £8,913 p.a.

  Independent Schools Tribunal

  Education Panel Members

  No remuneration as member—fee for hearing appeals to be decided

  Registered Homes Tribunal

  Panel of Experts Member

  No remuneration as member—fee for hearing appeals is £162 per day.

  HM Chief Inspector of Schools for England

  £115,000 p.a.

  HM Inspector of Schools for England

  £32,000—£50,200(national)

  £34,000—£52,600 (London)

  HM Senior Chief Inspector for Scotland

  £61,110—£98,400 p.a.

  HM Deputy Senior Chief Inspector for Scotland

  £50,510—£82,650 p.a.

  HM Chief Inspectors for Scotland

  £45,810—£73,470 p.a.

  HM Inspector for Scotland

  £34,452—£52,383 p.a.

  HM Chief Inspector of Schools for Wales

  £55,750–92,930 p.a.

  HM Staff Inspector of Schools for Wales

  £41,550—£65,270 p.a

  HM Inspector of Schools for Wales

  £33,661—£51,522 p.a.

  Study of Parliament Group
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council if she will set out the remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, in respect of the performance of parliamentary Select Committees and members of the Liaison Committee at his recent meeting with the Study of Parliament Group; and if she will make a statement. [80382]

  Mr. Tipping
  I met members of the Study of Parliament Group recently for an informal discussion about modernisation of the House of Commons. The discussion was wide ranging and involved all participants. No detailed note was made. Among the subjects covered were pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills, the proposal to revive and adapt the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs and the possibility of a second forum or Main Committee.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1)What proposals have been received by the new Millennium Experience Company for the sale of books and the promotion of reading and
  304
  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is listed for all appointments made by Her Majesty in Council, the Privy Council or I myself as President of the Council, for which there is provision for remuneration.

  literature as part of the Millennium Experience: and what response the company has made;[77561]

  (2) what provision will be made for the sale of books in the Millennium Dome; and how much space has been allocated for this purpose. [77560]

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the British books, other than those covering the Millennium Experience, which will be on sale at the Millennium Experience. [79403]

  Janet Anderson
  There will be a bookshop area within the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) own retailing arrangements at the Millennium Dome where a wide range of books and other printed material relevant to the Millennium and the Millennium Experience will be on sale. It is not the NMEC's policy to seek to replicate in the Dome, or to compete with, the retailing experience which people can enjoy in their high streets and local town centres. The NMEC is not therefore, planning to provide outlets for hight street book sellers or other retailers. The final decision on the amount of retailing space which will be allocated to book sales will be taken by the NMEC at the appropriate time.

  NMEC has received inquiries from two Members of this House and one inquiry from a member of the public about opportunities for retailing books and the promotion of reading and literature in the Dome.

  Millennium Dome (School Visits)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans have been made to offer free travel for school parties visiting the Dome; at what cost; and who will be liable for the cost; [78177]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) rail companies, (b) coach and bus operators and (c) other travel operators regarding discounted or free travel arrangements for school parties visiting the Millennium Dome. [78036]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is not responsible for providing travel arrangements to the Dome but it has been concerned, in its negotiations with the travel industry, including coach and rail operators, to encourage and facilitate affordable package deals which combine travel and Dome admission costs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced to this House on 17 March 1999, Official Report, column 1117, that NMEC's ticketing strategy would provide for up to one million free admissions for school children on the Education Tours Scheme. Whilst it is not part of the NMEC's remit to provide or fund free travel for school children it is in negotiations with the travel industry to encourage economic and affordable arrangements for them. Additionally, many schools are well placed to negotiate favourable deals through their established relationships with local travel operators. NMEC announced on 18 March that a number of the coach and rail operators are already indicating that attractive packages from around the UK will be available.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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) his Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78514]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  (a) As at 1 March 1999, there were 29 employees in the private offices of Ministers in my Department and other Ministerial support offices, a percentage being from ethnic minorities. In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of ethnic origin. (b) I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39. (c) My Department does not have a policy unit. (d) I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 31 March 1999, Official Report, column 710–11.

PRIME MINISTER

  Anglo-Spanish Summit
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Spanish Summit on 10 and 11 April. [81160]
  306
  The Prime Minister
  The summit was the first of its kind. It marked the recent step-change in Britain's bilateral relationship with Spain. The two Prime Ministers discussed the way forward in Europe. They underlined their interest in developing a competitive, prosperous Europe, and agreed a joint declaration on Employment and Economic reform and that a working group would take forward work in this area. Kosovo was inevitably discussed at length. The two Prime Ministers reiterated their shared support for continued military activity until Milosovic complied unreservedly to the five conditions set by NATO.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on staffing levels in the Strategic Communications Unit. [80060]

  The Prime Minister
  The Strategic Communications Unit has 9 members, 2 of whom are special advisers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80729]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Between 1 May 1997 and 1 April 1999 this Department was asked 783 named day questions of which 411, or 53.4 per cent. received a substantive reply on the named day.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Greenbury Report
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Greenbury report; and if he will make a statement. [79537]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Greenbury report made recommendations to a number of groups and organisations. Some organisations, such as the Government and the London Stock Exchange, have implemented their recommendations in full.

  The Government have noted, however, that some listed companies have not yet adopted sufficient transparency in their Reports such that shareholders have access to the information they may reasonably require to enable them to assess the company's general policy on executive remuneration. The Government also wish to see clearer evidence that boards are complying with the Greenbury recommendation that they
  "should consider each year whether the circumstances are such that shareholders should be invited to approve the policy set out in their remuneration report".
  307
  In addition, the Government would like to see institutional investors using their power and influence to ensure the implementation of best practice as set out in the Greenbury Code.

  I have asked my officials to monitor the current round of annual general meetings for evidence of a more positive approach to the Greenbury Code from companies and institutional investors. I will consider the case for legislation to amend the Companies Act 1985 in the light of the results of this monitoring.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80743]

  Mr. Byers
  According to our records, since May 1997, 2,510 questions for answer on a named day have been tabled to this Department, 31 per cent. of these received a substantive reply on the named day.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80760]

  Mr. Byers
  The publication "Public Bodies 1998", copies of which are available in the Library of the House, provides information on the levels of remuneration paid to those serving on the boards of non-departmental public bodies for which my Department is responsible. The majority of public appointments, however, are unpaid as most of those who accept a public appointment do so on a voluntary, unpaid basis.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Noise-induced Sensorineural Hearing Loss
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his letter ref. POS (3) 3019/18 of 26 January, what reports she has had on scientific evidence relating to noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss. [80586]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: When we were elected, we were determined to be satisfied that the Department's approach to the assessment of hearing loss on war pensions was seen to be in line with current scientific understanding. We immediately ordered a review of the scientific evidence behind the Department's approach. The review was conducted by four independent hearing loss experts chaired by the Government's then Chief Medical Officer.

  The report of the expert team received in March 1998 confirmed that hearing loss due to noise, such as that
  308
  experienced in service, does not increase after one is removed from it or as subsequent age-related hearing loss is added to it. These conclusions confirmed that the Department's approach to the assessment of hearing loss under the War Pension Scheme is in line with the current scientific understanding.

  The review also recommended that the matter be looked at again in one years time. The Under-Secretary, my noble Friend, Baroness Hollis of Heigham, therefore, asked the war pensions medical policy adviser to report to her by the end of February 1999 on any relevant developments. The report of this further review was placed in the Libraries of House of Commons and the House of Lords on 2 March 1999. It confirms that there is no new scientific evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss progressively deteriorates once a person is removed from the source of the noise which caused it; or that the combination of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss and subsequent hearing loss due to age is not more than additive.

  These are assumptions which have gained general acceptance and have formed the basis of an International Standard which has been in place for nearly 20 years and which have successfully provided the basis for medico-legal work world wide.

  The conclusions of this further review again confirm that the Department's current approach to the assessment of hearing loss is in line with current scientific evidence. This in turn, means that War Disablement Pensions cannot be increased in respect of hearing loss due to ageing. They can only be paid for disablement which is due to service.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80727]

  Mr. Timms
  Since May 1997, we have received 2,304 parliamentary questions for answer on a named day, of these, 2,090 (91 per cent.) were given a substantive answer on the day requested.

  This Department aims to give a holding reply to no more than 10 per cent. of all parliamentary questions for answer on a named day. However, where, for example, detailed work has to be carried out by the Department's analytical branches or the Government's Actuary Department, a full response cannot always be provided in the time allowed.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80758]
  309
  Mr. Timms
  "Public Bodies 1998", copies of which are available in the Library of the House, provides information on the levels of remuneration paid to those serving on the boards of public bodies for which the Department is responsible. Many of these appointments are unpaid volunteers.

SCOTLAND

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [80410]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Treaty of Amsterdam will have minimal impact on the responsibilities of the Department.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80733]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information for the period May 1997—February 1998 is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. The information for the period March 1998—March 1999 is as follows:

  Nominated questions tabled 1 March 1998–31 March 1999

  % answered substantively on date nominated

  1,021

  62

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80752]

  Mr. Dewar
  "Public Bodies 1998"—copies of which are available in the Library of the House—provides information on the levels of remuneration paid to those

  Name of review/task force

  Date of establishment

  If final report published, date of publication

  If terminated, date of termination

  Expected report date

  Expected termination date

  Human Rights Task Force

  28 January 1999

  —

  —

  No date set

  NO date set

  Review of Prison Service Health Care

  Autumn 1997

  29 March 1999

  —

  —

  No date set

  Review of Prison Service Mother and Baby Units

  3 December 1998

  —

  —

  Summer 1999

  No date set

  Inter-departmental Review of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses

  13 June 1997

  10 June 1998

  Last meeting on 13 March 1998

  —

  —

  Review of the Tote

  14 July 1998

  —

  —

  May 1999

  No date set

  Sex Offences Review

  25 January 1999

  —

  —

  December 1999

  December 1999

  Working Group on the Giving Age

  January 1999

  —

  —

  Not due to publish a report

  No date set

  Working Party on Electoral Procedures

  21 January 1998

  —

  —

  Summer 1999

  No date set

  310
  serving on the boards of public bodies for which my Department is responsible. The majority of public appointments, however, are unpaid as most of those who accept a public appointment do so on a voluntary basis.

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

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for allocating the Unallocated Capital Modernisation Fund moneys as set out in Table 1.4, page 16, of the Scottish Office Departmental report, CM 4215, March 1999. [80291]

  Mr. Dewar
  Of the £75m unallocated from the Capital Modernisation Fund, I have decided to allocate £4.2m to the elimination of mixed sex accommodation from the NHS in Scotland, and £0.3m to the Highlands and Island Fire Board. The allocation of the balance will be for the Scottish Executive to determine.

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

  Primary Education Funding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list which local authority areas in Scotland are providing a lower level of education funding per primary school pupil in real terms in 1999–2000 than in 1998–1999. [80677]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This information is not available centrally.

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79275]

  Mr Straw
  The information is set out in the table.
  311
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up

  Name of task force/policy review

  Sub-group

  Working parties

  Other subsidiary committees

  Human Rights Task Force

  This has a subsidiary group which receives copies of papers and minutes and can attend Task Force meetings when there are items of specific interest

  Review of Prison Service Mother and Baby Units

  A working group has been set up which comprises senior prison staff, Representatives of external Agencies, Specialists in the Field of maternal and child care and Representatives from key interest Groups

  Review of the Tote

  This review had a Working group to inform the operations of External Consultants

  Sex Offences Review

  The steering group of the Review has an external reference group to advise it

  Working Group on the Giving Age

  Set up to advise the Ad Hoc Ministerial Group on the Giving Age

  Working Party on Electoral Procedures

  A working group on Rolling Registration has delivered an has an external reference group to internal report to the Working party

  An electoral forms and equipment group is considering in detail electoral forms management

  A returning officers' fees and charges group will consider the scope for simplifying the Returning Officers' Charges Order

  Senator Pinochet
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will decide whether to issue a second authority to proceed in response to the Spanish extradition request for Senator Pinochet. [80227]

  Mr. Straw
  I signed a second Authority to Proceed in respect of Senator Pinochet yesterday evening. The Spanish request for his extradition will now be considered by the courts. The reasons for my decision were sent to all the parties concerned in a letter from one of my officials as set out:"I am writing to inform you that the Secretary of State yesterday evening signed a second Authority to Proceed ("ATP") in respect of Senator Pinochet. The original ATP is being transmitted to Bow Street and a copy, through the Crown Office, to the Divisional Court. I am notifying the Chief Clerk and the head of the Crown Office of this decision by fax. I enclose a copy of the ATP, signed on 14 April 1999, for your information.

  2. The Secretary of State is not under an obligation to provide reasons for his decision to sign an ATP. However, in this case, and in the light of the matters raised by the representations, he has agreed to give his reasons at this stage.

  3. In deciding to issue the new ATP, the Secretary of State has proceeded as if no previous ATP was in existence, and has considered the matter entirely afresh. He has limited
  312
  (a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees.[79252]

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

  himself to taking account only of considerations which are relevant to the question whether the new ATP should be issued or not.

  Representations

  4. Although there is no provision in the Extradition Act ("the Act") for representations at this stage in extradition proceedings, the Secretary of State has taken careful account of these in making his decision: in particular, representations made to him by legal representatives of Senator Pinochet; the Spanish Government; the Chilean Government; and legal representatives for "the Interveners" before the House of Lords. He also received material from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. To the extent that he has considered previously submitted representations, he has done so having regard to the latest judgment of the House of Lords and only in so far as they had relevance to the question whether a new ATP should be issued.

  5. The decision to issue the new Authority to Proceed was taken personally by the Secretary of State, who was satisfied that he took this decision with an open mind.

  The House of Lords ruling, 24 March 1999

  6. Six of the seven members of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords stated their view that the Secretary of State should reconsider his decision of 9 December 1998 in the light of the very considerable reduction in the number of extraditable charges from those identified by their ruling on 25 November.
  313
  7. The Secretary of State invited the assistance of the Divisional Court in finding a means to quash the first ATP of 9 December 1998, in order to comply with the recommendation of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in their latest decision. The Divisional Court indicated on Monday 29 March 1999 that the court could quash the first ATP with the consent of all parties to the proceedings at a hearing shortly after the Secretary of State had taken his decision whether a new ATP should be issued. The necessary procedural steps will be taken in consultation with Senator Pinochet's legal representatives and the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of Spain.

  The Secretary of State's approach to his decision

  8. The Secretary of State has taken a fresh decision whether to issue a new ATP under section 7(4) of the Act, which provides:

  "On receipt of any such request the Secretary of State may issue an authority to proceed unless it appears to him that an order of the return of the person concerned could not lawfully be made, or would not in fact be made, in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

  9. The Secretary of State has taken the approach that if it appears to him at this stage that no order for the return of Senator Pinochet to Spain could lawfully be made, or would in fact be made, then he should not issue a new ATP. If those conditions do not exist, he has a discretion whether or not to issue a new ATP.

  10. He has had regard to the relevant extradition arrangement, namely the European Convention on Extradition ("ECE"). The United Kingdom's obligation is to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain consistently with the ECE. That is a consideration to which the Secretary of State gives particular weight.

  11. The Secretary of State has taken his decision having taken account of, in particular, the judgment of the House of Lords of 24 March, and the appropriate and separate roles of the courts and himself in the scheme of the Act. There are various matters which the Secretary of State has considered at this stage which can be the subject of far closer and more satisfactory examination during the court stages of the extradition process (committal and habeas corpus) than is possible at this preliminary stage. In relation to such matters, the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate for them to be explored in full detail in the court proceedings, after notice of all points has been given to each party to permit argument by that party and (as necessary) the adducing of formal evidence and evidence in answer.

  12. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has considered the application of the Act to the Spanish request and all the general restrictions on surrender in sections 6 and 12 of the Act.

  Extradition crimes

  13. The Secretary of State has had well in mind the latest ruling of the House of Lords, to the effect that under United Kingdom law the only extraditable offences referred to in the Spanish request are offences after 8 December 1988.

  14. Section 1 of the Act provides that where, as in the case of Spain, extradition procedures under Part III of the Act are available, a person in the United Kingdom who: "is accused in that state of the commission of an extradition crime" may be arrested and returned to that state in accordance with those procedures.

  15. The Secretary of State considers that Senator Pinochet is accused, in Spain, of offences in the relevant period equivalent to United Kingdom offences of conspiracy to torture and torture, and that these are extradition crimes.

  16. The Secretary of State has taken account of section 9(8) of the Act, and the terms of paragraph 3 of the European Convention on Extradition Order 1990, which provides:

  "Where an extradition request is made by a Convention State in respect of a person accused of an offence, it shall not be necessary:

  (a) for that State to furnish the court of committal with evidence sufficient to warrant the trial of that person if the extradition crime had taken place within the jurisdiction of that court; or
  314
  (b) for the court of committal to be satisfied that there is evidence sufficient to warrant the trial of that person.".

  17. The Secretary of State has proceeded on the basis that he is entitled, at this stage of the extradition proceedings against Senator Pinochet, to treat the Spanish request as well-founded as a matter of Spanish law.

  Sovereign or diplomatic immunity

  18. In light of the latest decision of the House of Lords, the Secretary of State has proceeded on the basis that, in relation to extraditable offences, Senator Pinochet does not enjoy any immunity, save in respect of offences of murder and conspiracy to murder of which he is accused. Senator Pinochet does not enjoy immunity in relation to the extradition crimes of conspiracy to torture and torture referred to above.

  19. The Secretary of State has had regard to what is alleged in the request to have happened before 8 December 1988, but only in so far as it is relevant to the criminality of what is alleged to have happened after that date—i.e. in relation to the question whether acts of torture after that date were done in the course of a conspiracy begun before, such as to amount to an accusation of a conspiracy to torture continuing after that date for the purposes of section 7(5) of the Act.

  20. The Secretary of State does not accept the argument, put on behalf of Senator Pinochet, that he should be treated as immune unless there is evidence before him to show that Senator Pinochet had actually committed the relevant offences of which he is accused. Nor does the Secretary of State understand the majority of the House of Lords to have ruled (as Senator Pinochet contends) that immunity in respect of torture or conspiracy to torture only ceases to apply where torture is widespread or systematic.

  21. It does not appear to the Secretary of State that Senator Pinochet is entitled to diplomatic immunity as the head of a special mission.

  Additional Spanish material

  22. The Secretary of State was invited, by the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of Spain, to consider fresh material issued by the fifth Central Magistrate's Court of Madrid, dated 10 December 1998, 24 December 1998, 26 March 1999 and 5 April 1999, subsequent to the formal request received in the Home Office on 11 November 1998. He does not regard the material to be "supplementary material" under Article 13 of the ECE since, as the requested Party in that article, he has not considered it necessary to request such material from Spain in order to make his decision. The Secretary of State has, however, had regard to this material as part of the representations put before him in the context of considering whether (as Senator Pinochet contends) the Spanish accusations are not made and maintained in good faith.

  General restrictions

  23. The Secretary of State has considered all the general restrictions on surrender in sections 6 and 12 of the Act. In particular, he has had regard to:
  Political Offences (section 6(1)(a))

  24. Section 24 of the Act provides that no offence to which section 1 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act applies can be regarded as an offence of a political character. Since Spain is a designated country for the purposes of section 24, the Secretary of State considers that all the offences that are to be included in the ATP fall within this provision. In any event, it does not appear to him that the offences charged are of a political character.

  Punishment for political opinions (sections 6(1)(c) and (d))

  25. The Secretary of State does not consider that there are good grounds for concluding that the request has been issued for this purpose.
  315
  The passage of time (section 12(2)(a)(ii))

  26. The Secretary of State has not been notified by the Spanish Government that any of the offences for which extradition is sought are time barred from prosecution, and considers that it is reasonable to proceed at this stage on the footing that no relevant time bar appears to apply.

  27. Nor does the Secretary of State consider that the passage of time would render it unjust or oppressive to issue an ATP in this case. It does not appear that Senator Pinochet is unfit to stand trial. Although the Secretary of State has had regard to the effect of the latest House of Lords judgment in reducing the number and extent of potential charges, the remaining offences for which return has been sought are serious, and in the nature of those for which, domestically, passage of time would not be regarded as restricting prosecution. The case is an accusation case and, ordinarily, the reliability of witnesses' memories may properly be regarded as a matter for the court of prosecution.

  Accusation not made in good faith in the interests of justice (section 12(2)(a)(iii))

  28. The Secretary of State does not believe that there are sufficient grounds for concluding the surviving accusations have been made other than in good faith in the interests of justice. The Secretary of State has in mind that this issue can be addressed by the courts under section 11(3)(c) of the Act, and that it is a question, among others, which can be re-examined in the light of any developments at the stage when he comes to exercise his final discretion at the end of the extradition process, under section 12 of the Act.

  The Secretary of State's discretion

  29. The Secretary of State has considered the ambit of his discretion under section 7(4) and his residual general discretion under section 12 of the Act, which would apply in relation to the return of Senator Pinochet were he to be committed by the Bow Street magistrate under section 9 of the Act. The Secretary of State has been advised that the discretion conferred upon him is wide, and he has, therefore, taken a range of factors into consideration.

  30. A large number of points were raised in representations concerning the Secretary of State's discretion, including aspects of issues that fall to be considered under the general restrictions on return contained in the Act. In particular, the Secretary of Sate has had regard to the following:

  The change in the ambit of the case against Senator Pinochet

  31. The Secretary of State has considered the latest judgment of the House of Lords, and its impact upon the number and extent of the offences for which extradition may be sought, and concluded that the formal request from Spain appears to him to disclose the extradition crimes of torture and conspiracy to torture. He has considered the representations made on behalf of Senator Pinochet alleging that the manner in which the Senator's extradition has been sought constitutes an abuse of the extradition process. The Secretary of State does not consider that at this stage these allegations amount to a sufficient ground not to issue an ATP.

  Pending proceedings in Chile

  32. Senator Pinochet's legal representatives, and the Chilean Government, argued that the Senator should be returned to Chile where he could stand trial, and that it was artificial to require an extradition request from Chile where such return would be voluntary. However, in the absence of such a request, there is no extradition request from the Chilean Government which the Secretary of State could consider under section 12(5) of the Act. Moreover, there is no provision of international law which excludes Spain's jurisdiction in this matter. The Secretary of State does not consider the possibility of a trial in Chile to be a factor that outweighs the United Kingdom's obligations under the ECE to extradite Senator Pinochet to Spain.
  316
  Humanitarian considerations

  33. Representations were made on behalf of the Senator that his age and health would render it unjust or oppressive to issue an Authority to Proceed. The Secretary of State has considered these carefully, but concluded that it does not appear that the Senator is unfit to stand trial and concluded that in all the circumstances it would not be unjust or oppressive for him to stand trial in relation to the remaining extraditable offences with which he is charged. The Secretary of State also has in mind that this question, among others, can be re-examined in the light of any developments, at the stage when he comes to exercise his final discretion at the end of the extradition process, under section 12 of the Act.

  Other factors

  34. The Secretary of State has also considered other factors under his general discretion including:

  (i) the possible effect of extradition proceedings on the stability of Chile, and its future democracy; and]

  (ii) the possible effect of extradition proceedings on the United Kingdom national interest.

  35. He has concluded that the material and representations put before him do not amount to sufficient grounds not to issue an ATP.

  Conclusion

  36. In the event that Senator Pinochet is committed to await the Secretary of State's decision on his return, the Secretary of State will consider the extradition request afresh under section 12 of the Act. At that stage, he will be able to take into account any findings in the committal proceedings and any habeas corpus proceedings as well as any representations which Senator Pinochet may wish to make against return.

  37. If Senator Pinochet decides to apply for leave to move for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision, he reserves the right to expand upon the reasons given in this letter in an affidavit to be sworn by one of his officials."

  Women's Prison (Ashford)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the timetable for building a women's prison at Ashford, Middlesex. [80426]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The cost of construction and management of the proposed new prison at Ashford will fall outside the period of the current comprehensive spending review. The timetable for its construction will depend upon funding and other priorities within the Prison Service estate.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80737]

  Mr. Straw
  Between 1 May 1997 and 12 April 1999, a total of 2,269 Named Day parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by my Department. Of these, 75.4 per cent. (2,012) received a substantive reply on the day requested.

  Prisoners (Hepatitis)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people currently detained in prison are suffering from hepatitis; and what proportion of the prison population this figure represents. [80209]
  317
  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of prisoners reported by Prison Service establishments as suffering from various forms of hepatitis at 30 September 1998 (the last date for which a complete set of figures is currently available) was:

  Number

  Hepatitis A

  3

  Acute hepatitis B

  25

  Chronic hepatitis B

  75

  Chronic hepatitis C

  463

  Total

  566

  Prison population

  65,913

  Proportion of population

  0.86%

  Prison Sites (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is examining potential sites for a prison(a) in Colchester and (b) elsewhere in Essex.[80517]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No.

  Europol
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 18 March 1999,Official Report, columns 721–22, on Europol, if he will provide a breakdown by category of the types of request submitted by the United Kingdom for information from Europol.[80456]

  Kate Hoey
  There was a total of 394 requests made by United Kingdom law enforcement agencies during 1998 of which 82.5 per cent. were drug related; 5.6 per cent. were linked to immigration; 8.1 per cent. covered money laundering activities; 3 per cent. were related to trafficking in stolen vehicles and 0.8 per cent. concerned trafficking in human beings.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to her Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80728]

  Clare Short
  Since May 1997, 454 questions were tabled to my Department for a written answer on a named day; 95 per cent. received an answer on that day.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the public appointments for which her Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80757]
  318
  Clare Short
  The only public appointments for which my Department is responsible and for which remuneration is provided are to the Board of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The information is as follows:

  £

  Board Member

  Remuneration (per annum)

  Earl Cairns (Chair)

  30,000

  Ms J. Almond (Deputy Chair)

  10,000

  Mr. H. Singhania

  7,500

  Dr. J. Kydd

  7,500

  Mr. R. Murray

  7,500

  Professor D. Pearce

  7,500

  Ms C. Hayman

  7,500

  Mr. R. Seal

  7,500

  Mr. P. Kent

  7,500

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  IACS Maps
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what cost benefit analysis he has carried out on IACS map checks. [73343]

  Mr. Rooker
  The programme of map checks was introduced following evaluations undertaken by the European Commission of the Department's arrangements for developing a central IACS database recording details of field areas included in Area Aid Applications in accordance with the requirements of Community legislation. There would have been a risk of significant disallowance of reimbursement of Exchequer expenditure from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund on the schemes to which IACS applies if such checks had not been instituted.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the administrative cost to date to his Department of carrying out IACS map checks. [73290]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available. A number of checks are undertaken to meet the requirements laid down in Community legislation governing IACS and administrative costs of carrying out IACS map checks between 1994–1998 were not separately recorded.

  Pig and Poultry Bonemeal
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to, allow the use of pig and poultry bonemeal. [75843]

  Mr. Rooker
  The existing bans on the use of mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM) in feed for farmed animals and as fertiliser on agricultural land do not extend to MBM derived from poultry.

  Representations have been made by the pig industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) to allow porcine MBM to be fed to poultry on the condition that processing takes place in rendering plants dedicated to pig waste. The existing ban was put in place on the

  319
  recommendation of SEAC, and the Government continue to base their handling of BSE on the advice on the Committee.

  Before we would be prepared to ask SEAC to look at the use of porcine MBM for export or poultry feed purposes the industry itself will need to address the key issues of how monitoring at all stages of production and distribution would be carried out to avoid the possibility of cross contamination.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental Special Advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76819]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 February 1999, Special Advisers in this Department have made visits overseas on 12 occasions in an official capacity. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code. Costs are accounted for within the total costs for any overseas trips by Ministers. I have 2 departmental operational advisers and no non-departmental special advisers.

  There have been no occasions since 2 May 1997 when Special Advisers in this Department have travelled abroad in an official capacity unaccompanied by Ministers.

  Operational Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for(a) farms and (b) other agriculture-related industries (i) all licences and permits issued by his Department and its agencies to farms or companies enabling them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) current number of farms or companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76873]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The 106 authorisations, including those relating to approval or registration of premises enabling farms and other agriculture-related industries to carry out their businesses, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Banana Import Regime
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the basis for maintaining the European Union banana import regime; and when he expects the publication of the arbitrator's report on the matter. [79159]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EU's banana regime is designed to meet both our commitments to African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries under the Lomé Convention, Protocol 5 in particular, and our World Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations.

  Reports from both the WTO arbitrator and the Dispute Settlement Panel were published on 12 April and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Vitamins and Minerals Advisory Group
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that his ad hoc expert advisory group on vitamins and minerals takes note of the recommendations of the Agriculture Committee's report on vitamin B6 in relation to(a) the quality of scientific advice and (b) the use of safety factors. [79484]

  Mr. Rooker
  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 and will take these into account in carrying out its remit. The Group will, as a matter of course, give consideration to the use of safety factors and the quality of the available scientific evidence, and I am satisfied they are capable of reaching their own conclusions on these matters.

  Genetically Modified Soya
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions(a) he has had and (b) he plans to have with Brazil's Agriculture Minister in respect of genetically modified free soya supplies to the UK; and if he will make a statement. [80557]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have not met, or have plans to meet, the Brazilian Agriculture Minister to discuss GM soya supplies. This Department has published a list of suppliers of GM free soya for anyone wanting to obtain such material.

  Badgers
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects his Department's study into the links between TB in cattle and badgers to be published. [80288]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under the TB strategy I announced on 17 August last year, the links between TB in cattle and badgers will be examined through research and the randomised badger culling trial. The trial is planned to run for five or more years. The research projects, whose details I announced on 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 301–02, will take between two and five years to complete, and some may provide the basis for further projects. Subject to the need to ensure that premature publication does not jeopardise future work, I envisage that the results will be published as they become available.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on schemes which promote industry-wide production systems in(a) agriculture and (b) horticulture to demonstrate the safety and traceability of the food produced. [80244]

  Mr. Rooker
  Industry-wide assurance schemes which go beyond statutory requirements are for the industry to take forward in light of their assessment of prevailing market conditions. I welcome the development of these assurance schemes because they can help provide the consumer with confidence in the integrity of the product.

  Genetically Modified Maize
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the suppliers of genetically modified free maize. [80558]

  Mr. Rooker
  GM maize is not grown commercially in the EU, except for a small amount in Spain and France last year, all of which was used within Spain. Supplies of non-GM maize are thus widely available within Europe and a list of such suppliers is therefore unnecessary.

  Honey
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement in respect of measures to prevent contamination of honey by genetically modified material.[80556]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes hosted a workshop in 1991 to consider the safety of pollen from GM plants in honey. The workshop's conclusion was that the consumption of gene products from pollen in honey was likely to be negligible. The results from three research projects commissioned by MAFF to investigate this further subsequently confirmed this conclusion.

  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has obtained regarding regulations affecting the sale of higher-dose vitamin and mineral supplements in other European Union member states. [80222]

  Mr. Rooker
  Legislation on vitamin and mineral supplements varies from member state to member state. In most cases the rules relating to supplements sold under food law are more restrictive 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.

  Beef Exports (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much beef has been exported from Northern Ireland since the ban was lifted on 16 March 1998. [80180]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: There has only been one company involved in the export of beef from Northern Ireland since the lifting of the ban. In these circumstances, I cannot provide the information requested as it is commercial in confidence.

  Milk Imports
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the share of the domestic retail milk market currently accounted for by imports; and if he will provide corresponding figures for each of the last 10 years. [79939]
  322
  Mr. Rooker
  In 1998, it is estimated that imports accounted for 0.8 per cent. of the domestic retail liquid drinking milk market. The corresponding figures for each of the last ten years are shown in the table.

  Liquid drinking milk in the United Kingdom (thousand tonnes unless otherwise specified)

  Year

  Production1

  Imports2

  Exports2

  Total domestic use

  Imports as a percentage of total domestic use

  1988

  6,965

  11

  4

  6,973

  0.2

  1989

  6,921

  17

  3

  6,935

  0.3

  1990

  6,927

  21

  3

  6,945

  0.3

  1991

  6,903

  37

  3

  6,938

  0.5

  1992

  6,980

  67

  3

  7,044

  1.0

  1993

  7,008

  54

  3

  7,059

  0.8

  1994

  6,966

  68

  4

  7,029

  1.0

  1995

  7,128

  89

  5

  7,212

  1.2

  1996

  7,041

  68

  5

  7,104

  1.0

  1997

  6,955

  63

  6

  7,013

  0.9

  1998

  6,942

  56

  10

  6,988

  0.8

  1Production includes liquid drinking milk manufactured in the UK by dairy companies and farms for retail sale. It is not possible to identify separately the products for which imported raw milk is used by dairy companies. It is therefore possible that a small proportion of liquid drinking milk produced in the United Kingdom is manufactured from such imported raw milk.

  2 Overseas trade in liquid milk in immediate packings of a net content not exceeding two litres as shown in the Overseas Trade Statistics. Liquid milk in larger packings -is excluded as such trade could be for manufacturing use rather than for retail sale.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80726]

  Mr. Morley
  In the period from 1 of May 1997 to 31 March 1999, 1,884 parliamentary questions were tabled to this Department for written answer on a named day. Of these, 53 per cent. received a substantive reply on that day.

  Genetically Modified Food
  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
  1 have been asked to reply.

  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.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many overseas homes are owned by his Department; what proportion are occupied; and what plans he has to improve the quality of overseas service homes. [77450]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  No-fly Zones (Iraq)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many times Iraqi aircraft have violated the no-fly zones(a) in the five years preceding Operation Desert Fox and (b) since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox; [77229]

  (2) how many times allied aircraft have fired at Iraqi aircraft and installations in the no-fly zones when allied aircraft have been initially locked on by Iraqi forces (a) in the five years preceding Operation Desert Fox and (b) since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox; [77230]

  (3) how many times allied aircraft have fired at Iraqi aircraft and installations in the no-fly zones without being initially locked on by Iraqi forces (a) in the five years preceding Operation Desert Fox and (b) since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox. [77231]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: In the five years preceding Operation Desert Fox (16–19 December 1998), Iraqi aircraft violated the no-fly zones on over 80 occasions. RAF aircraft did not fire on any Iraqi aircraft or installations during this time. Since Operation Desert Fox there have been some 120 violations of the no-fly zones, in which Iraqi aircraft have frequently tried to lure our aircraft within range of surface-to-air missile traps.

  Our aircraft are routinely illuminated by Iraqi air defence network radars when patrolling the no-fly zones, but radar lock-on is a relatively rare occurrence as it exposes the initiator to the risk of an armed response. The Iraqis more commonly employ other means, including optical guidance, to direct their surface-to-air missiles. Statistics of lock-on occurrences have not been kept. RAF aircraft have attacked Iraqi targets on 15 occasions since Operation Desert Fox, in direct response to sustained attempts to shoot down coalition aircraft and kill aircrew.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department in each of the last five years of(a) public ceremonial duties and (b) VIP transport. [80710]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the costs to the United Kingdom of current international action relating to the situation in Kosovo. [79917]
  324
  Mr. George Robertson
  The total cost of military operations relating to Kosovo is impossible to estimate at this stage, given we do not know what Milosevic's next moves will be, and how we will need to respond. The costs will, however, be substantial. Our assessment of costs incurred as of 8 April is some £17 million; this does not include the costs of replenishing stock of ordnance expended.

  Service Injuries
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept by his Department of allegations concerning(a) physical and (b) mental health injuries suffered by former members of the armed forces as a result of their service. [80724]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department does not keep records of allegations of physical or mental health injuries suffered by former members of the Armed Forces attributable to their service. However, reported cases of injury are kept on personal medical records of serving members of the HM Forces. My Department also maintains records of common law claims for compensation from existing and former members of the Armed Forces concerning allegations of physical and mental injuries attributable to their Service.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80753]

  Mr. Spellar
  "Public Bodies 1998"—copies of which are available in the Library of the House—provides information on the levels of remuneration paid to those serving on the boards of public bodies for which the MOD is responsible.

  Since that report was written, the Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee and the Nuclear Powered Warships Safety Committee, which shared the same membership, have amalgamated in 1998, to form the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee, DNSC. The remuneration of DNSC members is identical to that of members of the previous Committees.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80732]

  Mr. Spellar
  According to our records 2,026 Named Day Questions have been tabled to my Department. Information on what percentage of them received a substantive reply could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Our database cannot currently provide that information, however, we are looking at ways to refine it which may enable us to provide such information in the future.

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80535)

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), gave him on 14 April 1999,Official Report, columns 239–40.

TREASURY

  Road Haulage Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the increases in diesel duty and vehicle excise duty on the future operations of the road haulage industry. [79460]

  Ms Hewitt
  In making his Budget judgment, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a wide range of factors into account.

  Small Firms
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning his Budget measures to help small firms. [79461]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Budget introduced a substantial package of measures for smaller businesses which will stimulate greater investment, innovation and growth within the small business sector and which will ensure that the sector is an important source of dynamism, innovation and competition for the economy as a whole.

  Debt Relief
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to press for higher levels of debt cancellation at the forthcoming meetings of the IMF and the World Bank. [79462]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor intends to take the opportunity at the Spring Meetings of the IMF/World Bank later this month to take forward his recent initiative on poverty reduction in the developing world, calling for faster, deeper and wider debt relief.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the future of the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund. [79463]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1999–2000, we expect benefit expenditure from the National Insurance Fund broadly to match income, in which case the Fund will not need a substantial Treasury Grant. The maximum Treasury Grant which may be made available to the Fund in this financial year shall not exceed 2 per cent. of the estimated benefit expenditure from the Fund. For subsequent years, we will decide on the level of Treasury Grant in light of advice from the Government Actuary.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of the British veto in respect of EC proposals for a common withholding tax.[79464]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 640.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the working families tax credit. [79465]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor has received a number of very helpful and constructive representations which have informed the development of WFTC and DPTC. And I have also had useful meetings with representative groups. In addition, the Inland Revenue continue to consult on a regular basis with a wide range of interested parties, on the details of the scheme and its administration.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to evaluate the impact of the working families tax credit. [79474]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government believe that the WFTC will create a strong new incentive for people with children to move into work and up the earnings scale, and provide a welcome boost to the incomes of low and middle income families with children. We naturally want to assess the effects of the new policy and ensure that it is achieved in the most effective way. We will therefore be carrying out a full evaluation of the impact of the WFTC.

  Public Sector Debt
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards net public sector debt. [79466]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government's Sustainable Investment Rule requires that public sector net debt as a proportion of GDP be held over the economic cycle at a stable and prudent level. The projections contained in Budget '99 show net public debt falling below 40 per cent. of GDP this year and to around 35 per cent. of GDP by 2003–04.

  Family-friendly Policies
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has put in place to help make work pay for parents balancing work and home responsibilities. [79467]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government place a high priority on policies designed to enable parents balance work and family life. The reforms to income tax and National Insurance Contributions, the National Minimum Wage and the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) from October 1999 with the generous child care tax credit will make work pay for parents and tackle the unemployment trap. At the same time the
  327
  increased generosity of the WFTC will mean that parents, whether single or a couple, have greater choice in deciding who works and how much.

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of tax revenue to be received between 1997–98 and 2001–02 from measures introduced since May 1997. [79468]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Table B9 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report shows forecasts of taxes and social security contributions, net of tax credits, as a per cent. of GDP, after taking into account measures introduced since May 1997. Forecasts of taxes and social security contributions, net of tax credits, in cash terms are published in Table B10. Forecasts of money GDP are published in Table B4.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for discussions with the Governor of the European Central Bank and the Commission about the Maastricht conditions on currency stability and how they apply to the UK's adoption of the euro. [79469]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has regular discussions on a range of economic issues with Central Bank Governors from other countries, including representatives from the euro-area, and the European Commission.

  The Government's new framework for macroeconomic policy provides the best platform to deliver greater exchange rate stability.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the United Kingdom Government of conversion from sterling to the euro. [79473]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost to the Government of conversion to the euro would depend on the detailed approach that the public sector took to the changeover. The outline National Changeover Plan is a first step in planning how the UK would make the changeover to the single currency. A further plan will be published in around a year's time.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the timing of any referendum on British entry into economic and monetary union. [79476]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's Outline National Changeover Plan published on 23 February 1999 explained that, if the Government decide to recommend joining the single currency and Parliament agrees, the speed at which the UK could move to a referendum would depend on how quickly the practical arrangements for a referendum could be put in place. The minimum period in which the UK could move from a decision by Government to a referendum is about 4 months.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to support small businesses in connection with the national changeover plan. [79470]
  328
  Ms Hewitt
  In developing the changeover plan, the Government have consulted extensively with key representatives from the SME sector, such as the British Chambers of Commerce, the Forum of Private Business, and the Federation of Small Business. We are very grateful for the constructive help and support they have given to the planning process.

  The Treasury's Euro Preparations Unit will continue to provide practical help and training via the many business intermediaries, such as Business Link, who have been assisting SMEs to prepare for the euro's introduction.

  Employer-provided Transport (Taxation)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the Inland Revenue's policy in respect of current tax demands to employers providing public transport for their work force. [79471]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the tax reliefs for green transport benefits announced in the Budget; these include exemptions for employer provided large works buses, and for subsidies to local public bus services, to get employees to and from work. These reliefs take effect from 6 April 1999. I am afraid there are no grounds for ignoring tax payable under the law applying to benefits for previous years.

  Pesticide Tax
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Government's proposals for a pesticide tax. [79472]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have received a number of representations on the subject of a possible tax or charge on the use of pesticides.

  A research report commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the possible design and impact of a tax or charge on pesticides was published on 24 March, with a list of consultative questions. The Government will consider carefully the views expressed on a number of issues raised in the report in deciding how best to proceed.

  Income and Wealth Disparities
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to use the tax system and other measures to reduce disparities of income and wealth. [79475]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to building a fairer society in which everyone has the opportunity to fulfil their potential and enjoy the benefits of high and stable levels of economic growth. The Working Families Tax Credit, the 10p tax rate, increased support for children and changes to the National Insurance system, among others, will increase the fairness of the tax system and encourage work incentives.

  The Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion, which will be set out in detail in a report later this year, is based around investment in prevention, work as the best way out of poverty, help for those who cannot work, and regeneration of the poorest communities.

  Women (Impact of Budget)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget on women. [79477]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Budget builds on the series of measures of particular benefit to women already implemented since we came to office. Women gain from this Budget right across the income distribution. This Budget demonstrates this Government's commitment to ensuring that women get a fair deal out of the tax and benefits system.

  Pensioners
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from pensioner organisations on his Budget announcements on(a) the winter fuel allowance and (b) the minimum pension guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [79478]

  Ms Hewitt
  The announcement of the fivefold increase in the winter fuel allowance, which will give £100 to every eligible pensioner household this coming winter, and the decision to uprate the minimum income guarantee for pensioners by earnings rather than prices in April 2000, have been generally welcomed.

  Cider Duties
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his policy regarding duties on cider. [79480]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have received a number of representations about cider duties including letters from members of the public. In the run up to the Budget I received a formal submission from the National Association of Cider Markers and subsequently met them on 24 February to hear their case.

  Child Maintenance Payments
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of the Budget on those who claim tax relief on child maintenance payments. [79481]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax relief for maintenance payments introduced by the last Government in 1988 is not a relief for child maintenance. It is a relief for payments made to a former husband or wife following separation or divorce. The former husband or wife may use the payments they receive to maintain a child, but equally the relief applies where there is no child in the family.

  The Inland Revenue estimate that the tax relief will be worth an average of £220 in the tax year 1999–2000, before it is withdrawn from 2000–01. This includes the transitional relief for those paying under maintenance arrangements set up before 15 March 1988.

  Taxes
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the level of taxes which will be paid in 1999–2000 of the measures in the three Budgets since July 1997. [79482]
  330
  Dawn Primarolo
  Table B9 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report shows forecasts of taxes and social security contributions, net of tax credits, as a per cent. of GDP, after taking into account measures introduced since May 1997. Forecasts of taxes and social security contributions, net of tax credits, in cash terms are published in Table B10. Forecasts of money GDP are published in Table B4.

  Income Tax Credits
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the level of taxation in 2001–02 if income tax credits are accounted for as expenditure rather than as negative taxation. [79451]

  Mr. Milburn
  On any definition, taxes are expected to be lower in 2001–02 than planned by the previous Government in their last Budget.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 97, for what reasons his answer did not list the jurisdictions referred to in paragraph 2–2 of the Financial Services and Markets Bill Progress report, published by Her Majesty's Treasury in March. [78973]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury officials discuss many matters of common interest with colleagues from overseas administrations regularly, but generally on the basis that these are private discussions.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number and proportion of pensioners who would pay(a) no income tax and (b) income tax at (i) 10 per cent., (ii) 20 per cent., (iii) 23 per cent. and (iv) 40 per cent. in 1999–2000 or the latest year for which figures are available if people aged over 65 years received only the basic personal tax allowance. [78974]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates for 1999–2000 are given in the table.

  Excluding age related personal allowance

  Including age related personal allowance as enhanced in the Budget

  Marginal rate of tax

  Number of pensioners1(thousands)

  Proportion (percentage)

  Number of pensioners1 (thousands)

  Proportion (percentage)

  Non-taxpayer

  6,100

  57

  7,000

  65

  10 per cent.

  550

  5

  450

  4

  20 per cent.

  750

  7

  750

  7

  23 per cent.

  3,150

  29

  2,350

  22

  40 per cent.

  150

  1

  150

  1

  Total

  10,700

  10,700

  1Women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over

  Renewable Energy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with colleagues at the DTI and DETR about the potential economic benefits of renewable energy in connection with the preparation of the Government review. [79546]
  331
  Ms Hewitt
  As Minister responsible for environmental issues including renewable energy in the Treasury, I have had a number of discussions with colleagues in the run up to the publication of the Renewables Review consultation document.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of extra revenue arising from the increase in road fuel duty in his Budget statement, including the added effects of VAT, which will come from Scotland. [79321]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: The Revenue consequence of the road fuel duty changes in the 1999 Budget is set out in Table 1.11 of the FSBR. The share of oil deliveries made in Scotland is set out in the 1998 Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  Widow's Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many widows bereaved in each of the five years after 5 April 2000 he estimates will no longer be able to claim widow's bereavement allowance; and what total amount they will lose in relation to previous entitlement as a result; [79438]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the savings to be achieved as a result of the abolition of the widow's bereavement allowance. [79437]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: It is estimated that around 220,000 widows claim the widow's bereavement allowance each year, in respect of a bereavement in that or the previous year. In 1999–2000, the allowance is £1,970, given at the rate of 10 per cent., but only three quarters of claimants–170,000—have sufficient income to use the allowance. The full year revenue effects of withdrawing the allowance is estimated to be £30 million in 2001–02. Separate estimates are not available for subsequent years.

  Medical Insurance (Age Discrimination)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to reduce age discrimination by private medical insurance providers. [80202]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is for insurers to decide which factors to take into account in assessing risk and pricing insurance products.

  Official Statistics
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish a White Paper on the future framework for official statistics. [79903]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government produced a Green Paper "Statistics: A Matter of Trust" last year which set out options for achieving its goal of enhancing the integrity, both actual and perceived, of official status.

  We will be bringing forward plans in this area as soon as they are finalised.

  Employment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 205, on employment, what is the impact on employment of a 1 per cent. increase in employment costs stemming from Government legislative requirements, unmatched by productivity changes. [79915]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have introduced a comprehensive set of policies aimed at promoting employment and incentives to work. Government legislative requirements have been designed with these aims in mind and, taken together, are not expected to raise employment costs.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 205, on employment, if he will estimate the impact of a 1 per cent. increase in wages on employment levels from supply side pressures, where there is no compensatory increase in productivity. [79914]

  Ms Hewitt
  Reductions in labour supply would tend to be associated with higher wage rates and lower employment. In contrast, Government policies are aimed at increasing labour supply and employment by promoting work incentives.

  Energy Tax
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to exempt renewable energy from an energy tax levied on business. [79863]

  Ms Hewitt
  Customs and Excise issued a consultation document on 9 March on the design and administration issues relating to the climate change levy. The consultation document asks for views on whether and, if so, how it might be possible to offer tax relief to electricity generated from renewable sources of energy.

  As made clear in the consultation document, there are a number of technical difficulties that would have to be overcome, including identifying the amount of electricity supplied from renewable sources under current electricity pool arrangements. The Government would welcome views on these issues.

  As indicated in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, the Government also intend to provide an additional £50 million a year from 2001–02 for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency and support for renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind power.

  Gift Aid Scheme
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that telephone inquiries in respect of the gift aid scheme are given information about smaller and regional charities.[R] [80029]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Gift Aid 2000 campaign is designed to raise awareness of the Millennium Gift Aid scheme, which provides tax relief for donations to UK charities to support education and anti-poverty projects in the world's
  333
  80 poorest countries. It is proposed to extend the scheme to provide also for the relief of poverty of refugees from designated countries and to designate Kosovo.

  People who ring the Gift Aid 2000 telephone number can choose up to three charities to benefit from their donation. If a donor requires assistance in choosing a charity, the operator will suggest some for the donor's approval. These are randomly selected by computer, either from a list of charities working in a part of the world or on a charitable activity nominated by the donor, or from the complete list of participating charities. All participating charities have an equal chance.

  UK Abatement
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on the UK abatement of the exclusion of annual pre-accession expenditure for each of the next eight years. [80014]

  Number of live and stillbirths by birthweight and percentages of live and stillbirths with a stated birthweight, for the residents of United Kingdom 1993–97

  Number

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Live and stillbirths (total births)

  Total stated

  742,579

  736,015

  732,819

  733,287

  727,095

  Under 2,500 grams

  52, 837

  53,362

  55,549

  55,167

  55,785

  Under 3,000 grams

  173,709

  173,544

  178,408

  177,097

  177,097

  Birthweight not stated

  22,558

  17,949

  2,573

  1,605

  1,193

  Live births

  Total stated

  738,482

  731,842

  728,773

  729,299

  723,298

  Under 2,500 grams

  50,038

  52,548

  52,761

  52,408

  53,165

  Under 3,000 grams

  170,393

  170,209

  175,129

  173,838

  174,012

  Birthweight not stated

  22,280

  17,797

  2,498

  1,543

  1,113

  Stillbirths

  Total stated

  4,097

  4,173

  4,046

  3,988

  3,797

  Under 2,500 grams

  2,799

  2,814

  2,788

  2,759

  2,620

  Under 3,000 grams

  3,316

  3,335

  3,279

  3,259

  3,085

  Birthweight not stated

  278

  152

  75

  62

  80

  Number of live and stillbirths by birthweight and percentages of live and stillbirths with a stated birthweight, for the residents of United Kingdom 1993–97

  Percentages

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Live and stillbirths (total births)

  Under 2,500 grams

  7.1

  7.3

  7.6

  7.5

  7.7

  Under 3,000 grams

  23.4

  23.6

  24.3

  24.2

  24.4

  Live births

  Under 2,500 grams

  6.8

  6.9

  7.2

  7.2

  7.4

  Under 3,000 grams

  23.1

  23.3

  24.0

  23.8

  24.1

  Stillbirths

  Under 2,500 grams

  66.3

  67.4

  68.9

  69.2

  69.0

  Under 3,000 grams

  80.9

  79.9

  81.0

  81.7

  81.2

  Note

  The number of births without a stated birthweight are shown in this table, but have been excluded from any calculations.

  Sources

  Office for National Statistics

  Information and Statistics Division, Scotland

  DHSS, Northern Ireland
  334
  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 731–47.

  Birth Weights
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the percentage of live and stillborn births in the United Kingdom, where birth weight was(a) under 2,500 grammes and (b) under 3,000 grammes in each of the past five years. [80392]

  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. Frank Field, dated 15 April 1999

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

  The information requested is shown in the attached table.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of(a) men and (b) women, living in England and Wales who are at present unemployed and are aged (i) 50 to 55 years, (ii) 55 to 60 years and (iii) 60 to 65 years. [80643]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 15 April 1999 As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on unemployment in England and Wales.
  The table below shows the latest estimates from the Autumn 1998 (September-November) Labour Force Survey (LFS), the ONS measure of unemployment. This is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. Estimates are not seasonally adjusted.

  ILO unemployment totals1 and rates by age group and sex, England and Wales, Autumn 1998

  Thousand

  Age

  All persons

  Men

  Women

  50 to 54

  99

  64

  35

  55 to 59

  80

  50

  30

  60 to 64

  40

  35

  2—

  1Total ILO unemployed as a percentage of all economically active persons in the relevant age group

  2 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source

  Labour Force Survey, ONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80740]

  Ms Hewitt
  Of the 2,320 questions tabled for answer on a named day, 733 (32 per cent.) were answered substantively on that day. Approximately 60 per cent. of all named day questions were answered within two days of the due day.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of vehicle excise duty for a 40 tonne lorry in the United Kingdom in 1998–99. [79445]

  Ms Hewitt
  Vehicles plated to operate at 40 tonnes on 5 axles were first allowed on UK roads on 1 January 1999. They cause over 30 per cent. more road damage than 5 axle vehicles operating at 38 tonnes, the previous maximum weight. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his March Budget statement that vehicle excise duty for such lorries plated at 40 tonnes would be set at £5,750 strongly to discourage their use at this weight.
  336
  In light of the environmental impact the Chancellor also announced in his Budget Statement that vehicle excise duty for 41 tonne, 6 axle lorries, which cause considerably less road damage, has been set at £2,500.

WALES

  Rainfall Statistics
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the daily rainfall figures since 1 January 1998 at(a) the Clywedog Dam, (b) Lake Vyrnwy and (c) the Welshpool measurement centre; and if he will make a statement; [80715]

  (2) what the flow measurements were from 1 January 1998 to 1 April 1999 on (a) the Clywedog Dam, (b) the dam at Lake Vyrnwy and (c) the River Severn below the Nescliffe Brook; and if he will make a statement; [80688]

  (3) what the daily water levels were from 1 January 1998 to 1 April 1999 at (a) the Clywedog Dam and (b) the dam at Lake Vyrnwy; and if he will make a statement. [80716]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  These data are collected by the Environment Agency. I have asked the Environment Agency Wales' General Manager to send this information to the hon. Member. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80761]

  Mr. Michael
  "Public Bodies 1998", copies of which are available in the Library of the House, provides information on the levels of remuneration paid to those serving on the boards of public bodies for which my Department is responsible. In addition my Department publishes a quarterly report containing details of public appointments for which I have responsibility. A copy of this report is also available in the Library of the House. The majority of public appointments are unpaid, as most of those who accept a public appointment do so on a voluntary basis.

  Responsibility for making public appointments in Wales will transfer to the National Assembly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80742]

  Mr. Michael
  The number of Named Day parliamentary questions tabled since 1 May 1997 is 824, of which 91.5% received a substantive reply on that day.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Visits (Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) frequency of visits and (b) costs of visits, by ambulance personnel to nursing homes and residential homes in Mid-Bedfordshire in cases where an elderly person fell and staff were unable to assist in the last year for which figures are available. [80488]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Frail Elderly (Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many frail elderly Mid-Bedfordshire residents are currently accommodated in acute hospitals. [80482]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Residential Care (Bedfordshire)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the occupancy levels in nursing homes and residential homes within Mid-Bedfordshire in the last year for which figures are available. [80462]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is readily available only at local social services authority/health authority level. The latest average occupancy rate for nursing homes in Bedfordshire health authority is 80 per cent. at 31 March 1997. The most recent estimated average occupancy rate for Bedfordshire local authority is 90 per cent. over the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998.

  Tobacco Control
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of financial and human resources has the Government committed in support of the work of the International Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. [80484]

  Ms Jowell
  We are committed to co-operating with other Governments in the establishment of an international framework convention on tobacco control. The White Paper "Smoking Kills" indicated our support for the World Health Organisation's work on the convention and we are discussing with WHO how we can most effectively help them.

  It is too early to say what resources will be necessary or will be made available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80731]

  Ms Jowell
  2,543 Parliamentary Questions have been tabled to this Department on a Named Day since May 1997. Of these 2,185, or 86 per cent., have been answered substantively on that day.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80754]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the public appointments for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible, and the levels of remuneration payable, is contained in the Department of Health Public Appointments Annual Report. The Report is currently being prepared for all those in post at 1 March 1999 and will be published in June. Copies of last year's report, giving details of those appointed at 1 March 1998 and the levels of remuneration then payable, is in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants (Wales)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many black and other ethnic minority people are employed in the Civil Service in Wales; what percentage they are of all civil servants in Wales; how many are in each grade; and what percentage they are of each grade. [80197]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  At least 290 civil servants of ethnic minority origin were employed in Wales on 1 April 1998, 1.4 per cent. of staff whose ethnic origin is known. The table shows the breakdown by responsibility level.

  Ethnic minority staff1,2 in post in Wales at 1 April 1998

  Responsibility level3

  Ethnic minority staff in post

  % of staff with known ethnic origin4

  Senior Civil Service

  0

  0.0

  Grade 6

  5—

  1.9

  Grade 7

  6

  1.0

  SEO

  5

  0.9

  HEO

  11

  0.6

  EO

  42

  0.9

  AO

  157

  1.8

  AA

  64

  1.5

  1Non-industrial staff

  2Excludes 2 per cent. of staff in Departments who do not provide data to Mandate, the Cabinet Office's database of Civil Service personnel

  3 Responsibility levels are an approximate assignment of staff to a level of seniority broadly equivalent to the former service wide grades

  4 Staff who responded to departmental surveys on ethnic origin

  5In order to preserve confidentiality number withheld and the total rounded to nearest 10 as there are less than five staff at this level

  Source

  Cabinet Office, Mandate

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals the Government have to introduce changes to speed up the process of public inquiries. [79888]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  On 31 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning announced how the Government proposed to proceed with their proposals to improve the efficiency of planning appeal procedures, whether handled by written
  339
  representations, hearings or public inquiries. He also announced challenging new targets for the Planning Inspectorate for handling planning appeals by written representations, hearings and inquiries.

  The Government will be issuing shortly a consultation paper on ways in which the handling of major infrastructure projects of national importance might be improved. The Government have also published a Consultation Document on Transport Safety, as announced on 31 March 1999, Official Report, columns 759–63, which notes the tensions there can sometimes be in the relationship between accident investigations and inquiries, and the pursuit of legal proceedings, and invites views on the right balance to be struck.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80734]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  For the purpose of this answer, questions tabled to me as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to my predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) have been aggregated. Details relating to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) for his period as Minister without Portfolio have been recorded separately.

  The figures for the number of named day parliamentary questions tabled to this Department and the percentage which received a substantive reply on the due date from 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1999 are as follows:

  Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Total named day parliamentary questions tabled: 317

  Percentage receiving a substantive answer on the due date: 74

  Minister without Portfolio

  Total named day parliamentary questions tabled: 223

  Percentage receiving a substantive answer on the due date: 56.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80751]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  "Public Bodies 1998"—copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House—provides information on the levels of remuneration paid to those serving on the boards of public bodies for which my Department is responsible. The majority of public appointments, however, are unpaid as most of those who accept a public appointment do so on a voluntary basis.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the numbers of, and salary bill for, political advisers on the latest date for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [80114]
  340
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  There are currently 67 Special Advisers in post. The total pay bill for Special Advisers in 1998–99, including pension contributions, was £3.5 million.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80738]

  Mr. Hoon
  According to Departmental records, 454 parliamentary questions for written answer on a named day were tabled to the Lord Chancellor's Department between May 1997 and the end of March 1999; of these, 409, or 90 per cent. received a substantive reply on that day.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible and which carry a fee or salary, indicating for each type of appointment the fee or salary band which applies. [80747]

  Mr. Hoon
  "Public Bodies 1998"—copies of which are available in the Library of the House—provides information on the levels of remuneration paid to those serving on the boards of the non-departmental public bodies for which my Department is responsible. The majority of public appointments, however, are unpaid as most of those who accept a public appointment do so on a voluntary basis.

  Uninsured Driving
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will consult on allowing magistrates to impose a wider range of sentences on people convicted of driving without insurance. [80472]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Driving without insurance is a summary only offence which currently attracts a maximum penalty of a Level 5 (£5,000) fine and an automatic endorsement of the offender's driving licence of between 6 and 8 points. The court may also disqualify the offender from driving.

  The Government are aware of concern about both the maximum penalty available and the sentences which are imposed in practice. The Home Office has therefore sought the views of the Magistrates' Association on this issue. The Association's response is currently under consideration.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to
  341
  the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 197, if he will list the range of common foreign and security policy issues covered by the proposed extension of the remit of the Joint Consultative Committee; and what documents will be available to members of the Committee.[80179]

  Ms Quin
  Under its revised remit, the Joint Consultative Committee will discuss, in the light of the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties, the most effective means of realising a Common Foreign and Security Policy. It will examine the development of policy through the adoption of EU Common Strategies, Common Positions and Joint Actions, and the need for greater co-ordination and co-operation in European Defence, with particular reference to the relationship between the EU, NATO and the WEU. The Joint Consultative Committee will make proposals as appropriate.

  Documents are prepared as required for meetings of the Joint Consultative Committee.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the content of the reports received between 16 and 20 October from the British Embassy at Madrid, on the investigations into Senator Pinochet in Spain; and if he will make a statement. [80406]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  For details of the report from our Embassy in Madrid on 16 October, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 597–98. On 19 October 1998, the Embassy dispatched two reports, commenting on Spanish reactions to the arrest of Senator Pinochet and on Judge Garzon's intentions as regards making an early visit to London to interview him.

  South Africa
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to assist in the conduct of free and fair elections in South Africa in June 1999. [80217]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In response to an invitation from the South African Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), the FCO will send a small team of observers to the South African elections on 2 June.

  Economic Community of West African States
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is giving to the moratorium on the import, export and manufacture of light weapons adopted by the Economic Community of West African States in October 1998. [80503]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government fully support the ECOWAS moratorium on light weapons.
  342
  The moratorium applies to the import, export and manufacture of pistols, rifles, submachine guns, carbines, machine guns, anti-tank missiles, mortars and howitzers up to a calibre of 85mm and ammunition and spare parts for the above.

  A Code of Conduct was agreed by ECOWAS Member States on 24 March 1999 regarding the implementation of the moratorium. If an ECOWAS Member State believes it has a valid reason for an exemption to the moratorium, the Code states that the ECOWAS Executive Secretariat should be involved in the consultation process. Similarly for proposed imports of weapons for peacekeeping operations, the Code states that the ECOWAS Secretariat should be notified.

  The Government will take the provisions of the moratorium and the ECOWAS Code of Conduct fully into account when assessing relevant export licence applications.

  The summary of Government Commitments on the application of Strategic Export Controls has been updated to reflect the moratorium and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The UK will brief participating states to the Wassenaar Arrangement on the moratorium, and our policy towards it, at the next Wassenaar Arrangement General Working Group meeting.

  The UK is also financially supporting the moratorium. The Department for International Development has pledged $500,000 over three years to assist the UNDP in the implementation of the moratorium. We are also considering how the UK might help ECOWAS administer the moratorium.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to announce in advance the agenda for the General Affairs Council where an agenda has been prepared in draft form. [80018]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 773, and on 26 March 1999, Official Report, column 427. Every month, I give the House details of the items expected on the agendas of the Council of Ministers during the following month. For example, I outlined the draft agenda of the March General Affairs Council on 25 February 1999, Official Report, column 440–46.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80739]

  Ms Quin
  Our existing database does not allow us to compile the information requested without incurring disproportionate cost in its retrieval; however, its replacement will.

  Since 1 May 1997, we have issued 436 holding replies.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Funding
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per pupil in (i) Derbyshire, (ii) Nottinghamshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) Surrey and (v) Hertfordshire in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each of the last five years at constant prices from all public sources of funds. [79363]

  Net institutional expenditure per pupil in primary and secondary schools in LEA-maintained schools 1993–94 to 1997

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Primary

  Derbyshire1

  1,783

  1,734

  1,673

  1,640

  1,578

  1,616

  1,665

  Derby City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,661

  1,703

  1,743

  Nottinghamshire

  1,829

  1,840

  1,774

  1,765

  1,732

  1,762

  1,812

  Staffordshire1

  1,718

  1,701

  1,617

  1,628

  1,575

  1,625

  1,673

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,596

  1,645

  1,663

  Surrey

  1,882

  1,896

  1,946

  1,816

  1,776

  1,822

  1,881

  Hertfordshire

  1,855

  1,867

  1,856

  1,827

  1,754

  1,815

  1,863

  Secondary

  Derbyshire1

  2,659

  2,489

  2,362

  2,319

  2,287

  2,342

  2,414

  Derby City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,595

  2,660

  2,723

  Nottinghamshire

  2,630

  2,604

  2,466

  2,417

  2,362

  2,403

  2,471

  Staffordshire1

  2,319

  2,287

  2,179

  2,190

  2,115

  2,182

  2,247

  Stoke on Trent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,306

  2,377

  2,403

  Surrey

  2,360

  2,428

  2,389

  2,317

  2,321

  2,381

  2,459

  Hertfordshire

  2,661

  2,461

  2,502

  2,481

  2,516

  2,603

  2,673

  1 LEA reorganised in 1997–98

  Note

  Figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are notional estimates

  Book Allowance
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many state schools will not receive the full £2,000 book allowance announced in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement on 9 March, because they have fewer than 100 pupils on roll; and what estimate he has made of the extra cost of granting such schools the fixed £2,000 rather than the £20 per pupil currently allocated. [79887]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: Around 20,000 schools will receive £2,000. There are around 4,000 schools with fewer than 100 pupils which will receive £20 per pupil. It would cost a further £3.1 million to allocate £2,000 each to these schools.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many parliamentary questions have been tabled to his Department for written answer on a named day since May 1997; and what percentage of them received a substantive reply on that day. [80736]

  Mr. Mudie
  Between 1 May 1997 and 13 April, 2,002 parliamentary question have been tabled to the Department for Written answer on a named day, 75 per cent. received a substantive reply on that day.
  344
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: The following table shows net institutional expenditure on LEA maintained schools for the years 1993–94 to 1997–98, the latest year for which figures are available. Figures have been calculated using December 1998 Gross Domestic Product deflators. The table also shows notional figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000, based on an assumption that the expenditure of the authorities in question in 1997–98 escalates at the same rate as their respective SSA increases for those years.

  Teachers' Pay Awards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost of(a) the 3.5 per cent. pay award for all teachers and (b) the higher awards for head teachers announced in February 1999 will be in 1999–2000; and if he will list for the current year the pay increases due to head teachers and the dates on which they will become payable. [80675]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The cost in 1999–2000 of the general teachers' pay award in England will be £397 million, and the estimated additional cost of headteacher pay restructuring will be £14 million.

  All headteachers received a pay increase of 3.5 per cent. on 1 April. Pay increases due to individual headteachers on 1 September 1999 will vary, but average percentage increases according to current school size group are estimated to be as follows:

  Percentage

  Group

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  1

  5

  —

  of which fewer than 100 pupils

  6

  —

  2

  2

  3

  3

  2

  3

  4

  2

  1

  5

  —

  1

  6

  —

  1

  Single Teacher Classes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the average size of single teacher classes in primary schools in January 1999(a) in each local education authority and (b) in total; and what were the corresponding figures in January 1998; [80681]

  Average class size of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools Local Education Authority areas, January 1998 and 1999

  Primary

  Secondary

  1998

  19991

  19981

  19991

  England

  27.2

  27.5

  21.7

  21.8

  North East

  27.3

  26.7

  22.2

  22.3

  Hartlepool

  28.0

  27.1

  22.9

  22.9

  Middlesbrough

  27.2

  26.9

  21.5

  22.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  27.1

  26.6

  22.5

  22.5

  Stockton-on-Tees

  27.4

  26.7

  22.1

  22.8

  Darlington

  29.3

  27.2

  23.0

  22.6

  Durham

  28.1

  29.9

  22.3

  22.9

  Northumberland

  27.3

  26.4

  23.0

  23.0

  Gateshead

  26.0

  26.2

  21.6

  21.0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  27.6

  26.7

  21.8

  21.7

  North Tyneside

  27.5

  27.1

  21.8

  22.2

  South Tyneside

  26.9

  26.2

  22.5

  22.8

  Sunderland

  25.9

  25.7

  21.5

  21.7

  North West and Merseyside

  28.0

  27.6

  21.8

  21.8

  North West

  28.2

  27.8

  22.1

  22.1

  Cheshire2

  27.2

  —

  21.4

  —

  Cheshire3

  —

  27.4

  —

  21.3

  Halton

  —

  26.3

  —

  20.4

  Warrington

  —

  27.9

  —

  21.8

  Cumbria

  26.2

  25.8

  21.1

  20.9

  Bolton

  29.0

  29.0

  22.0

  21.7

  Bury

  29.2

  27.4

  23.5

  23.6

  Manchester

  27.7

  27.6

  22.4

  22.7

  Oldham

  29.6

  29.0

  22.2

  22.2

  Rochdale

  29.5

  29.1

  22.7

  22.4

  Salford

  27.3

  27.3

  22.3

  22.1

  Stockport

  28.3

  28.0

  23.9

  23.7

  Tameside

  29.5

  28.3

  23.2

  23.3

  Trafford

  28.7

  28.4

  21.1

  21.1

  Wigan

  28.2

  27.3

  21.8

  21.7

  Lancashire2

  28.9

  —

  22.5

  —

  Lancashire3

  —

  28.2

  —

  22.4

  Blackburn and Darwen

  —

  29.0

  —

  22.2

  Blackpool

  —

  30.0

  —

  24.1

  Merseyside

  27.2

  27.0

  20.9

  21.0

  Knowsley

  28.1

  27.7

  22.6

  21.7

  Liverpool

  27.0

  26.6

  20.9

  21.4

  St. Helens

  27.6

  27.6

  20.1

  20.0

  Sefton

  27.9

  27.8

  21.1

  21.4

  Wirral

  26.4

  26.2

  20.7

  20.6

  Yorkshire and Humber

  28.2

  27.7

  22.1

  22.2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  28.7

  28.3

  21.6

  22.1

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  29.4

  28.8

  24.7

  24.7

  North East Lincolnshire

  29.3

  28.5

  23.5

  23.6

  North Lincolnshire

  28.6

  26.5

  23.3

  23.0

  York

  27.8

  26.9

  21.2

  21.1

  North Yorkshire

  26.8

  26.6

  21.0

  21.2

  Barnsley

  29.1

  28.6

  23.4

  23.8

  Doncaster

  28.2

  28.1

  21.5

  21.6

  Rotherham

  27.9

  27.2

  21.9

  22.0

  Sheffield

  26.9

  26.5

  23.0

  22.8

  Bradford

  28.7

  27.8

  23.2

  23.1

  Calderdale

  28.0

  27.5

  21.1

  20.4

  Kirklees

  29.3

  28.5

  22.3

  22.8

  Leeds

  28.2

  27.9

  20.7

  20.7

  Wakefield

  28.7

  28.3

  22.5

  23.1

  346
  (2) what was the average size of single teacher classes in secondary schools in January 1999 (a) in each local education authority and (b) in total; and what were the corresponding figures in January 1998. [80682]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  347

  Average class size of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools Local Education Authority areas, January 1998 and 1999

  Primary

  Secondary

  1998

  19991

  1998

  19991

  East Midlands

  28.0

  27.6

  21.7

  21.8

  Derby

  29.8

  28.1

  21.8

  21.9

  Derbyshire

  29.4

  28.2

  22.2

  22.4

  Leicester City

  27.4

  26.6

  23.1

  22.7

  Rutland

  25.6

  25.8

  23.8

  23.3

  Leicestershire

  26.9

  26.7

  22.3

  22.4

  Lincolnshire

  27.0

  27.3

  20.3

  20.6

  Nottinghamshire

  27.3

  27.3

  21.4

  21.5

  Nottinghamshire2

  28.8

  —

  21.7

  —

  Nottinghamshire3

  —

  28.4

  —

  21.8

  City of Nottingham

  —

  27.6

  —

  21.8

  West Midlands

  27.4

  27.0

  22.0

  21.9

  Hereford and Worcester

  26.7

  —

  22.1

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  25.4

  —

  25.1

  Worcestershire

  —

  27.0

  —

  22.3

  Shropshire2

  27.3

  —

  22.0

  —

  Shropshire3

  —

  26.9

  —

  21.6

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  28.1

  —

  21.9

  Stoke

  27.1

  26.9

  22.9

  23.2

  Staffordshire

  27.1

  26.7

  22.3

  22.3

  Warwickshire

  28.5

  27.6

  21.9

  21.6

  Birmingham

  27.6

  27.4

  21.6

  21.5

  Coventry

  27.8

  26.6

  22.1

  22.2

  Dudley

  26.7

  26.6

  22.8

  22.5

  Sandwell

  28.5

  27.5

  21.6

  21.4

  Solihull

  28.3

  27.3

  22.8

  22.9

  Walsall

  26.6

  26.1

  21.4

  21.2

  Wolverhampton

  27.1

  27.3

  20.9

  21.1

  Eastern

  27.1

  27.0

  21.2

  21.4

  Luton

  27.8

  27.7

  23.7

  23.4

  Bedfordshire

  26.9

  26.7

  22.4

  22.3

  Cambridgeshire2

  28.5

  —

  22.0

  —

  Cambridgeshire3

  —

  28.7

  —

  22.8

  City of Peterborough

  —

  28.3

  —

  20.8

  Essex2

  27.6

  —

  21.7

  —

  Essex3

  —

  27.7

  —

  21.6

  Southend

  —

  28.4

  —

  20.9

  Thurrock

  —

  27.5

  —

  23.7

  Hertfordshire

  27.2

  27.1

  20.2

  20.6

  Norfolk

  26.4

  25.9

  20.2

  20.5

  Suffolk

  25.0

  24.9

  20.8

  20.9

  London

  27.2

  27.3

  21.7

  21.8

  Inner London

  26.5

  26.7

  22.3

  22.5

  City of London

  24.8

  24.7

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  27.0

  26.8

  19.5

  20.2

  Hackney

  25.7

  26.4

  23.6

  23.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  25.9

  26.1

  22.8

  22.4

  Haringey

  27.3

  27.3

  21.6

  21.0

  Islington

  27.1

  26.9

  23.9

  23.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  25.5

  25.8

  21.0

  21.5

  Lambeth

  25.9

  26.0

  22.4

  22.3

  Lewisham

  26.1

  26.4

  20.6

  21.6

  Newham

  28.3

  28.3

  24.5

  24.4

  Southwark

  26.6

  26.8

  22.4

  23.2

  Tower Hamlets

  26.6

  26.7

  24.0

  24.1

  Wandsworth

  25.6

  26.0

  22.4

  23.2

  Westminster

  24.5

  25.4

  21.6

  22.3

  Outer London

  27.6

  27.5

  21.4

  21.5

  Barking and Degenham

  27.0

  27.2

  21.9

  21.9

  Barnet

  26.7

  26.9

  20.5

  20.2

  Baxley

  29.1

  28.3

  21.9

  21.4

  Brent

  26.5

  27.1

  20.2

  20.0

  Bromely

  28.6

  27.8

  20.6

  21.1

  348 349

  Average class size of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools Local Education Authority areas, January 1998 and 1999

  Primary

  Secondary

  1998

  19991

  1998

  19991

  Croydon

  28.2

  28.0

  22.0

  22.6

  Ealing

  27.3

  27.1

  22.2

  22.4

  Enfield

  29.0

  28.9

  20.6

  20.9

  Greenwich

  25.8

  26.2

  21.6

  21.8

  Harrow

  27.5

  27.3

  23.5

  23.4

  Havering

  28.0

  28.2

  21.7

  22.7

  Hillingdon

  27.3

  26.7

  20.3

  20.7

  Hounslow

  26.9

  27.0

  21.6

  21.6

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  29.0

  29.3

  21.0

  21.0

  Merton

  27.8

  27.2

  22.9

  22.4

  Redbridge

  28.6

  28.5

  20.9

  20.9

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  27.0

  27.3

  24.1

  23.4

  Sutton

  27.8

  27.9

  20.7

  21.2

  Waltham Forest

  26.8

  27.0

  22.9

  23.5

  South East

  27.8

  27.7

  21.4

  21.7

  Berkshire

  27.6

  —

  20.4

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  27.8

  —

  20.7

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  26.6

  —

  21.3

  West Berkshire

  —

  26.1

  —

  20.2

  Reading

  —

  27.1

  —

  20.1

  Slough

  —

  27.9

  —

  21.0

  Wokingham

  —

  28.0

  —

  20.9

  Milton Keynes

  27.7

  27.5

  22.2

  22.6

  Buckinghamshire

  28.1

  27.9

  21.0

  21.6

  Brighton and Hove

  28.6

  28.5

  22.3

  22.0

  East Sussex

  28.3

  28.7

  21.4

  22.0

  Portsmouth

  27.9

  28.2

  22.8

  23.2

  Southampton

  27.9

  27.6

  22.0

  22.6

  Hampshire

  28.3

  28.2

  22.4

  22.7

  Isle of Wight

  26.5

  25.6

  22.4

  22.4

  Kent2

  28.2

  —

  20.4

  —

  Kent3

  —

  28.1

  —

  20.8

  Medway

  —

  28.1

  —

  21.0

  Oxfordshire

  27.5

  27.1

  22.0

  22.1

  Surrey

  26.7

  26.9

  21.6

  22.2

  West Sussex

  27.0

  27.2

  21.6

  21.4

  South West

  27.9

  27.7

  22.0

  22.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  26.8

  27.4

  20.8

  21.0

  City of Bristol

  27.8

  27.7

  21.3

  21.8

  North Somerset

  28.4

  28.5

  21.7

  21.9

  South Gloucestershire

  28.7

  28.0

  21.7

  21.5

  Cornwall

  27.6

  27.9

  22.4

  22.3

  Isles of Scilly

  17.6

  17.3

  14.0

  20.0

  Devon2

  28.0

  —

  21.7

  —

  Devon3

  —

  26.7

  —

  21.9

  City of Plymouth

  —

  27.6

  —

  21.9

  Torbay

  —

  28.6

  —

  21.2

  Bournemouth

  29.7

  29.3

  22.5

  22.1

  Poole

  28.7

  29.4

  20.5

  20.5

  Dorset

  27.5

  27.0

  22.5

  22.0

  Gloucestershire

  27.5

  27.5

  21.7

  21.2

  Somerset

  27.8

  27.9

  23.9

  23.9

  Swindon

  29.4

  28.9

  23.6

  23.6

  Wiltshire

  27.2

  27.3

  21.3

  22.0

  1Provisional

  2Before Local Government re-organisation of April 1998

  3After Local Government re-organisation of April 1998

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average size of single teacher reception classes in primary schools in January 1999(a) in each local education authority and
  350
  (b) in total; and what were the corresponding figures in January 1998. [80683]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  351

  Size of reception classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England, January 1998 and 1999

  1998

  1999(provisional)

  Pupils

  Classes

  Average class size

  Pupils

  Classes

  Average class size

  England

  484,530

  18,763

  25.8

  485,925

  19,096

  25.4

  North East

  29,623

  1,151

  25.7

  28,202

  1,126

  25.0

  Hartlepool

  868

  35

  24.8

  938

  39

  24.1

  Middlesbrough

  2,015

  79

  25.5

  1,952

  74

  26.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,738

  69

  25.2

  1,784

  68

  26.2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,522

  94

  26.8

  1,918

  78

  24.6

  Darlington

  1,070

  39

  27.4

  1,231

  43

  28.6

  Durham

  5,185

  203

  25.5

  5,467

  218

  25.1

  Northumberland

  2,971

  113

  26.3

  2,624

  107

  24.5

  Gateshead

  2,457

  98

  25.1

  2,298

  94

  24.4

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3,042

  112

  27.2

  2,615

  105

  24.9

  North Tyneside

  2,315

  90

  25.7

  2,138

  84

  25.5

  South Tyneside

  1,787

  67

  26.7

  1,792

  71

  25.2

  Sunderland

  3,653

  152

  24.0

  3,445

  145

  23.8

  North West and Merseyside

  78,305

  2,933

  26.7

  75,598

  2,934

  25.8

  North West

  60,892

  2,259

  27.0

  59,136

  2,279

  25.9

  Cheshire1

  9,814

  385

  25.5

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire2

  —

  —

  —

  6,073

  236

  25.7

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  1,461

  60

  24.4

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  2,346

  91

  25.8

  Cumbria

  4,153

  162

  25.6

  4,288

  174

  24.6

  Bolton

  2,697

  101

  26.7

  2,868

  105

  27.3

  Bury

  1,863

  66

  28.2

  1,770

  74

  23.9

  Manchester

  5,668

  217

  26.1

  5,791

  223

  26.0

  Oldham

  3,107

  107

  29.0

  2,751

  101

  27.2

  Rochdale

  2,197

  80

  27.5

  2,184

  82

  26.6

  Salford

  2,855

  110

  26.0

  2,755

  110

  25.0

  Stockport

  3,413

  127

  26.9

  3,312

  130

  25.5

  Tameside

  2,891

  102

  28.3

  2,621

  96

  27.3

  Trafford

  2,745

  100

  27.5

  2,583

  99

  26.1

  Wigan

  4,014

  145

  27.7

  3,497

  148

  23.6

  Lancashire1

  15,475

  557

  27.8

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire2

  —

  —

  —

  11,369

  428

  26.6

  Blackburn and Darwen

  —

  —

  —

  1,845

  66

  28.0

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  1,622

  56

  29.0

  Merseyside

  17,413

  674

  25.8

  16,462

  655

  25.1

  Knowsley

  2,240

  86

  26.0

  2,102

  80

  26.3

  Liverpool

  5,971

  231

  25.8

  5,465

  220

  24.8

  St. Helens

  2,188

  85

  25.7

  2,216

  84

  26.4

  Sefton

  3,379

  130

  26.0

  3,495

  137

  25.5

  Wirral

  3,635

  142

  25.6

  3,184

  134

  23.8

  Yorkshire and Humber

  46,691

  1,805

  25.9

  45,794

  1,814

  25.2

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,641

  97

  27.2

  2,523

  91

  27.7

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  2,745

  103

  26.7

  2,366

  93

  25.4

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,611

  58

  27.8

  1,534

  62

  24.7

  North Lincolnshire

  1,441

  51

  28.3

  1,366

  60

  22.8

  York

  1,194

  52

  23.0

  1,497

  62

  24.1

  North Yorkshire

  3,905

  154

  25.4

  3,722

  148

  25.1

  Barnsley

  2,110

  87

  24.3

  1,741

  75

  23.2

  Doncaster

  3,266

  120

  27.2

  3,311

  123

  26.9

  Rotherham

  1,915

  90

  21.3

  2,168

  99

  21.9

  Sheffield

  3,640

  160

  22.8

  3,765

  172

  21.9

  Bradford

  5,857

  206

  28.4

  5,990

  222

  27.0

  Calderdale

  2,084

  80

  26.1

  2,149

  82

  26.2

  Kirklees

  3,826

  142

  26.9

  3,437

  130

  26.4

  Leeds

  8,216

  306

  26.8

  7,870

  294

  26.8

  Wakefield

  2,240

  99

  22.6

  2,355

  101

  23.3

  East Midlands

  29,491

  1,190

  24.8

  29,964

  1,244

  24.1

  Derby

  1,789

  71

  25.2

  1,935

  85

  22.8

  Derbyshire

  4,071

  164

  24.8

  4,689

  197

  23.8

  Leicester City

  2,543

  94

  27.1

  2,221

  88

  25.2

  Rutland

  145

  7

  20.7

  150

  6

  25.0

  Leicestershire

  5,302

  220

  24.1

  5,073

  213

  23.8

  Lincolnshire

  5,183

  203

  25.5

  5,219

  211

  24.7

  Northamptonshire

  6,698

  258

  26.0

  6,243

  243

  25.7

  352 353

  Size of reception classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England, January 1998 and 1999

  1998

  1999(provisional)

  Pupils

  Classes

  Average class size

  Pupils

  Classes

  Average class size

  Nottinghamshire1

  3,760

  173

  21.7

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire2

  —

  —

  —

  3,352

  151

  22.2

  City of Nottingham

  —

  —

  —

  1,082

  50

  21.6

  West Midlands

  64,119

  2,462

  26.0

  63,050

  2,490

  25.3

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,747

  270

  25.0

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1,405

  58

  24.2

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  5,633

  222

  25.4

  Shropshire1

  2,692

  120

  22.4

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire2

  —

  —

  —

  1,358

  64

  21.2

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  —

  —

  1,371

  60

  22.9

  Stoke

  3,165

  121

  26.2

  3,029

  121

  25.0

  Staffordshire

  10,425

  418

  24.9

  10,323

  437

  23.6

  Warwickshire

  5,352

  201

  26.6

  5,147

  204

  25.2

  Birmingham

  14,676

  550

  26.7

  14,924

  551

  27.1

  Coventry

  3,921

  150

  26.1

  4,085

  167

  24.5

  Dudley

  3,453

  128

  27.0

  3,462

  130

  26.6

  Sandwell

  4,581

  164

  27.9

  3,395

  132

  25.7

  Solihull

  2,887

  99

  29.2

  2,709

  107

  25.3

  Walsall

  3,393

  137

  24.8

  3,275

  130

  25.2

  Wolverhampton

  2,827

  104

  27.2

  2,934

  107

  27.4

  Eastern

  44,328

  1,808

  24.5

  46,996

  1,916

  24.5

  Luton

  1,291

  46

  28.1

  1,593

  48

  33.2

  Bedfordshire

  3,269

  121

  27.0

  2,848

  111

  25.7

  Cambridgeshire1

  6,805

  255

  26.7

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire2

  —

  —

  —

  5,166

  194

  26.6

  City of Peterborough

  —

  —

  —

  1,868

  72

  25.9

  Essex1

  15,389

  630

  24.4

  —

  —

  —

  Essex2

  —

  —

  —

  13,203

  540

  24.5

  Southend

  —

  —

  —

  1,935

  75

  25.8

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  1,601

  67

  23.9

  Hertfordshire

  7,934

  343

  23.1

  8,666

  379

  22.9

  Norfolk

  5,832

  234

  24.9

  6,038

  241

  25.1

  Suffolk

  3,808

  179

  21.3

  4,078

  189

  21.6

  Greater London

  67,971

  2,613

  26.0

  72,661

  2,750

  26.4

  Inner London

  23,641

  940

  25.2

  26,285

  1,014

  25.9

  City of London

  0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  0.0

  Camden

  1,168

  43

  27.2

  1,283

  48

  26.7

  Hackney

  1,904

  76

  25.1

  1,865

  72

  25.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  910

  39

  23.3

  936

  41

  22.8

  Haringey

  2,449

  87

  28.1

  2,463

  90

  27.4

  Islington

  1,726

  64

  27.0

  1,782

  69

  25.8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  527

  24

  22.0

  648

  28

  23.1

  Lambeth

  2,370

  90

  26.3

  2,408

  91

  26.5

  Lewisham

  1,554

  73

  21.3

  2,620

  104

  25.2

  Newham

  3,138

  124

  25.3

  4,241

  155

  27.4

  Southwark

  2,943

  115

  25.6

  3,017

  119

  25.4

  Tower Hamlets

  1,731

  69

  25.1

  1,716

  63

  27.2

  Wandsworth

  2,313

  91

  25.4

  2,320

  91

  25.5

  Westminster

  908

  45

  20.2

  986

  43

  22.9

  Outer London

  44,330

  1,673

  26.5

  46,376

  1,736

  26.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,285

  85

  26.9

  2,275

  82

  27.7

  Barnet

  2,602

  98

  26.6

  3,147

  118

  26.7

  Bexley

  2,803

  100

  28.0

  2,915

  109

  26.7

  Brent

  2,722

  101

  27.0

  2,941

  105

  28.0

  Bromley

  3,405

  121

  28.1

  3,304

  118

  28.0

  Croydon

  4,178

  150

  27.9

  4,078

  147

  27.7

  Ealing

  3,599

  131

  27.5

  3,937

  146

  27.0

  Enfield

  3,133

  108

  29.0

  3,214

  111

  29.0

  Greenwich

  1,767

  85

  20.8

  1,797

  83

  21.7

  Harrow

  2,326

  85

  27.4

  2,236

  81

  27.6

  Havering

  2,820

  104

  27.1

  2,895

  107

  27.1

  Hillingdon

  1,390

  61

  22.8

  1,076

  52

  20.7

  Hounslow

  2,363

  87

  27.2

  2,640

  92

  28.7

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,257

  46

  27.3

  1,386

  47

  29.5

  Merton

  1,424

  58

  24.6

  1,397

  59

  23.7

  Redbridge

  2,102

  85

  24.7

  2,446

  93

  26.3

  354 355

  Size of reception classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England, January 1998 and 1999

  1998

  1999(provisional)

  Pupils

  Classes

  Average class size

  Pupils

  Classes

  Average class size

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,412

  49

  28.8

  1,365

  48

  28.4

  Sutton

  782

  32

  24.4

  975

  38

  25.7

  Waltham Forest

  1,960

  87

  22.5

  2,352

  100

  23.5

  South East

  75,423

  2,926

  25.8

  76,059

  2,951

  25.8

  Berkshire

  4,266

  180

  23.7

  —

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  —

  642

  27

  23.8

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  —

  —

  439

  22

  20.02

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  813

  41

  19.8

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  529

  24

  22.0

  Slough

  —

  —

  —

  1,031

  39

  26.4

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  —

  838

  37

  22.6

  Milton Keynes

  2,439

  90

  27.1

  2,110

  84

  25.1

  Buckinghamshire

  5,196

  206

  25.2

  5,009

  198

  25.3

  Brighton and Hove

  2,277

  81

  28.1

  2,547

  92

  27.7

  East Sussex

  4,353

  171

  25.5

  4,832

  185

  26.1

  Portsmouth

  2,252

  85

  26.5

  2,390

  90

  26.6

  Southampton

  2,844

  109

  26.1

  2,232

  87

  25.7

  Hampshire

  13,999

  516

  27.1

  13,616

  499

  27.3

  Isle of Wight

  1,373

  57

  24.1

  1,308

  57

  22.9

  Kent1

  15,979

  604

  26.5

  —

  —

  —

  Kent2

  —

  —

  —

  12,946

  493

  26.3

  Medway

  —

  —

  —

  3,045

  113

  26.9

  Oxfordshire

  2,829

  120

  23.6

  2,820

  127

  22.2

  Surrey

  9,792

  384

  25.5

  10,925

  413

  26.5

  West Sussex

  7,824

  323

  24.2

  7,987

  323

  24.7

  South West

  48,579

  1,875

  25.9

  47,601

  1,871

  25.4

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,447

  55

  26.3

  1,507

  58

  26.0

  City of Bristol

  4,004

  149

  26.9

  4,105

  152

  27.0

  North Somerset

  1,795

  69

  26.0

  1,758

  68

  25.9

  South Gloucestershire

  2,764

  101

  27.4

  2,794

  106

  26.4

  Cornwall

  4,642

  190

  24.4

  4,197

  170

  24.7

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0.0

  0

  0

  0.0

  Devon1

  11,034

  423

  26.1

  —

  —

  —

  Devon2

  —

  —

  —

  6,542

  279

  23.4

  City of Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  3,122

  123

  25.4

  Torbay

  —

  —

  —

  1,247

  48

  26.0

  Bournemouth

  1,389

  51

  27.2

  1,252

  44

  28.5

  Poole

  1,671

  57

  29.3

  1,266

  43

  29.4

  Dorset

  2,912

  123

  23.7

  3,033

  130

  23.3

  Gloucestershire

  5,489

  213

  25.8

  5,821

  222

  26.2

  Somerset

  5,144

  197

  26.1

  5,499

  215

  25.6

  Swindon

  2,094

  77

  27.2

  2,356

  87

  27.1

  Wiltshire

  4,194

  170

  24.7

  3,102

  126

  24.6

  1Before Local Government re-organisation of April 1998.

  2After Local Government re-organisation of April 1998.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much of the windfall tax allocation for the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds was spent in 1998–99 in total; and what percentage of that total was spent on(a) administration of the scheme, (b) Gateway provision and (c) provision of options. [80679]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Final expenditure on the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in 1998–99 is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available and will place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities(a) in England and (b) in Wales whose aggregate schools budget will provide less funding in real terms per pupil in 1999–2000 than 1998–1999. [80678]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities are currently in the process of submitting details of their budget proposals for the financial year 1999–2000 to the Department. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library. These figures will also be published in the next few months, alongside tables showing the level of each local education authority's
  357
  expenditure on its schools. Responsibility for schools in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when were the deadlines for(a) the preparation of budgets under the fair funding system for their submission to his Department and (b) notifying schools of their budget share; and if he will list each local education authority in England that has failed to meet either of these deadlines. [80674]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local eduction authorities are required to publish their budget statements and to notify schools of their budget shares before the beginning of the financial year to which they relate. The following local authorities published their budget statements for the 1999–2000 financial year by the appointed time:

  Barnet

  Brent

  Brighton and Hove

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Redbridge

  Southend

  South Gloucestershire

  Trafford.

  Information about the dates on which local education authorities notify their schools of their budget shares is not collected centrally.
  358
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority in England for the most recent year for which information is available the total budgeted expenditure(a) within the local schools' budget and (b) within the individual school's budget. [80673]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The local schools budget and individual schools budget are being introduced for the financial year 1999–2000. Local education authorities are currently in the process of submitting details of their budget proposals for 1999–2000 to the Department. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library. These figures will also be published in the next few months, alongside tables showing the level of each local education authority's expenditure on its schools.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state for each local education authority in England for the financial year 1999–2000 the budgeted expenditure per pupil(a) within the local schools' budget and (b) within the individual school's budget. [80672]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities are currently in the process of submitting details of their budget proposals for the financial year 1999–2000 to the Department. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

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

Airedale Allergy Centre, West Yorkshire
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their attitude to the imminent closure of the Airedale Allergy Centre in West Yorkshire.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Airedale Allergy Centre is a privately funded establishment. The future of the centre therefore must be a decision for the centre itself. The Government, for their part, are looking at ways of improving and extending services at the 80 or so allergy clinics within the National Health Service and are also considering the recognition of allergy as a specialty in its own right.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that the incidence of multiple chemical sensitivity, indeed allergy in general, is on the increase? The Airedale Centre is the first purpose-built environmentally controlled unit in the country, and probably in the world, where severely ill patients can be properly diagnosed and treated. Does the noble Lord agree that it would be a tragedy for this developing area of medicine if the funding problems associated with the changeover from the old system of extra-contractual referrals meant that this unique facility was lost, as indeed seems likely?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the NHS has the ability to refer patients to such a centre. If patients are not being so referred at present it suggests that the health authorities and primary care groups concerned believe that there are effective alternatives within the NHS. I also understand that a factor in the funding of the centre is the attitude of private insurers who refuse to cover patients with chronic illness. At the end of the day, this is not an NHS clinic; it is a private clinic. It is not the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State or the National Health Service. Its future has to be in its own hands.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the possible impending closure is largely the result of uncertainty about the new system of out-of-area treatments? What assurance can he give that other specialist centres will not be affected by the new system?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not follow the logic of the noble Lord's question. The Government have moved to replace the unsatisfactory use of extra-contractual referrals by the previous administration which proved very costly and bureaucratic. Most ECRs
832
will now be covered by service agreements. Those that are not will be replaced by out-of-area agreements, and allocations will be adjusted, rather than having the bureaucratic invoicing of individual treatments. The Government have moved to make sure that in terms of specialist services there is much more certainty in the future than there is at present.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I think—
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I think there will be plenty of time for everyone who wishes to speak.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is the turn of this side.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it may not necessarily be the fact that there are other provisions within a health authority area which prevent health authorities from funding patients to the Airedale clinic, or to Breakespear hospital, which practises a similar type of medicine, but the fact that it is said that the effectiveness of such medicine is not clinically proven? Does the noble Lord accept that medicine is not a static science—or art, whichever way you look at it? Might it not help if minds were opened a little to the fact that many patients who have gone through the mill of National Health Service treatments for 15 or 20 years finally achieve beneficial results from treatment in those centres?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that medical science is a very fast-moving art. Indeed, that is why the health service is spending so much energy in trying to ensure that its commissioning decisions are based on the most effective medical evidence available. That is the whole purpose of the new arrangements that we have introduced. It is why health authorities and primary care groups are having to work closely together to develop health improvement programmes, so that the referral patterns and commissioning decisions are based on the most up-to-date medical advice.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I found disturbing the reference of the Deputy Chief Whip to "this side", implying that these Benches are counted with the Liberals and that Cross-Benchers are counted with the Government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I shall leave that for the usual channels to go into.
The Minister said that it had been possible to have extra-contractual referrals to this centre. Can he assure me that the present situation arises because there are alternative facilities, or is it the case that the primary care

833
groups are not properly set up, staffed and operational in the area? They certainly have not been in many other areas. Can he assure me that the primary care system introduced on 1st April is really working in this area?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot comment on the individual referrals that may have been made to this centre. However, I believe that impressive progress has been made up and down the country in developing primary care groups and ensuring that they are operating effectively. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I believe that over the next few months we shall see primary care groups working together with health authorities and individual clinicians, and ensuring that the services they commission are focused on improving the health of people in their districts.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that those who attend the Airedale clinic are people whom the National Health Service, drug-based modern science or whatever it may be, have failed, and that therefore the Government have a duty to support those who attend the Airedale clinic?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I must stress that the Airedale Allergy Centre is not an NHS facility and therefore the NHS does not have a responsibility towards it. The purpose and responsibility of primary care groups and health authorities is to make decisions based on the best clinical advice available, and that is what they do.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the aim is to enhance our environment? Does he further agree that there is a connection between the environment and allergies? Should the Government therefore not be putting more effort into supporting this kind of initiative?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe it is accepted that allergic illnesses are caused by many factors, one of which, it is argued, is the environment. I agree that we should encourage research into this and other areas. However, that does not take away from the basic premise that this centre is in the private sector and is not the responsibility of the NHS, and that referrals to it can be made by the NHS but have to be made on the basis of the best clinical evidence available.

Council of the Isles
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the status of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands in the council of the isles.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey will be full members of the British-Irish Council.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I understand that they are not part of the United Kingdom, although
834
belonging to the Crown. I am not entirely sure what their status should be. Does the Minister recall his previous Answer to me on this subject? He said that after the Kilbrandon Report on the Constitution there remained,
"areas of uncertainty in the existing relationship [between these territories and the United Kingdom] which itself was complex "— [official Report, 22/3/99; col. WA131.],
and to which the Kilbrandon Report did not provide an authoritative answer. Does the Minister recall that for Customs Union purposes the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are part of the European Union but Gibraltar is not, although for electoral purposes Gibraltar is part of the European Union but the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not? Does he therefore accept that it might be useful for clarification purposes for the Government to consider commissioning a report on the United Kingdom's European territories on the lines of the recent useful report on the United Kingdom's non-European dependent territories?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always remember my earlier Answers and look back on them with great pleasure. The formation of the British-Irish Council has nothing to do with the Kilbrandon Report. The British-Irish Council derives from Strand Three of the Belfast agreement, in which it was agreed that the British-Irish Council would comprise representatives of the British Government, the Irish Government, devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, when established, and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, together with representatives of the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. This is a step forward and a change which I am sure the noble Lord's party welcomes as part of the continuing organic development of our constitutional arrangements.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the Minister said that there was provision that, if appropriate, the devolved regions of England would be represented in the council of the isles. Can he tell us what thought has been given to the form of that representation, perhaps starting with London when the greater London authority is established next year?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I spoke of devolved institutions, when established, and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I believe my answer is literally accurate because it derives entirely from my reading of the text of Strand Three of the agreement. If there are continuing developments, this is the kind of body which will itself, I hope, be subject to organic growth on the basis of consensus.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, what about the position of Sark and Alderney, or are their interests to be recognised and implemented by Guernsey and Jersey?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, they will certainly not be represented by Jersey; I think there would be civil war if they were. Sark and Alderney, as every schoolboy knows, are within the jurisdiction and bailiwick of Guernsey.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, after 1st July when the Scottish

835
Executive is set up and is represented in the council of the isles, if that executive takes a different view on a reserved matter from the view taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, its representatives will be able to take part in discussions on that agenda item in the council of the isles?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we believe that one should avoid being unduly prescriptive. If one looks at the text of Strand Three, one can see that it will be open to the British-Irish Council to agree common policies or common actions. Individual members, which would include the Parliament of Scotland at Edinburgh, may opt not to participate in such common policies and common actions. The answer to the noble Lord's question is to be found in the text of the agreement.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is all very fine, but some of us do not have before us the text of the agreement. That was why my noble friend asked the Minister to explain the matter. Can he have another shot?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to have another shot. I turn from paragraph 6 to paragraph 7 of Strand Three:
"The [British-Irish Council] normally will operate by consensus. In relation to decisions on common policies or common actions … it will operate by agreement of all members participating in such policies or actions".
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, agrees that nothing could be plainer.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, following the supplementary of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, how will members of the BIC be selected from the British devolved institutions?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, by the British devolved institutions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Channel Islands are possessions of the Crown in its capacity as inheritor of the Duchy of Normandy and no other?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in furtherance of the organic constitutional development of which the Minister is so fond, does he believe that there is any case for adding Gibraltar to the council of the isles?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there may be a case for it. However, as far as I am aware it does not fall within the Belfast agreement.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to tell the House what the council of the isles can do. Can the noble Lord tell us what it does, if anything?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it does not do anything at the moment because there have been no
836
elections of which I am aware to an assembly in Cardiff, a parliament in Scotland or an assembly in Northern Ireland. One awaits those elections. It has a substantial prospective agenda. For example, paragraph 5 of Strand Three indicates that,
"Suitable issues for early discussion … could include transport links, agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues, health issues, education issues and"—
I look particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—
"approaches to EU issues".

Noise at Work
3.21 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to minimise the risk to hearing from noise at work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, there is substantial legislation in place requiring employers and others to take action to reduce the risk to hearing from noise at work. The Health and Safety Executive and other enforcing authorities are continually working to increase awareness of the risks to health from noise, to ensure compliance with the legislation, to offer practical advice and guidance on ways to reduce noise levels and to control exposure to noise at work.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I declare an unpaid interest as president of the RNID. Is my noble friend aware that although I welcome the constructive nature of his Answer, the evidence points to the fact that the Health and Safety Executive is failing because many employers are unaware of their obligations under the Act and do not comply with the regulations and because many workers are unaware of the dangers to their hearing from noise at work? Does my noble friend on behalf of the Government agree that the next step is for the Government to monitor more closely the work of the Health and Safety Executive and to do what they can to help it to achieve a really significant change to prevent thousands of British workers suffering hearing loss?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are still areas of British industry, particularly the newer ones, which are not fully aware of the regulations and which are not fully enforcing them. Nevertheless, the Health and Safety Executive has made substantial efforts to provide information to employers and others. Its leaflets on reducing noise at work and Sound Solutions have received very widespread circulation. Bearing in mind my noble friend's declared interest, I am aware of the report by the TUC and the RNID pointing to some of the problems in getting across the message, which I and my colleague Michael Meacher very much welcome. As to giving greater emphasis to the

837
Health and Safety Executive, we are doing better than monitoring; we are very substantially increasing the resources that are available to the HSE.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to express my deep admiration for the courage and persistence of my noble friend Lord Ashley in this matter. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Health and Safety Executive is focusing more on this issue? How many prosecutions have taken place? What have been the results, and what precise steps is the executive taking to enforce the many regulations to which he has rightly referred? Is it correct that the risk from noise is growing all the time and that my noble friend is right to express very deep concern about the way this matter is being handled?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. A substantial number of people are exposed to potential noise problems. The HSE estimates that at least 1.3 million people are exposed to noise levels that may result in damage to hearing and that about 170,000 people say that they are suffering from noise at work. I am not in a position to give information on the precise number of prosecutions, but I can say that a very substantial proportion of the additional resources to be allocated to the Health and Safety Executive as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be directed at inspection and the enforcement of the regulations to which my noble friend refers.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that at present there is inadequate legislation with regard to aircraft noise? Will the Government consider whether on this small and crowded island the time has come to restrict the use of helicopters to the military and emergency services?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are substantial regulations relating to helicopters in highly residential areas. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to restrict their use entirely to military and emergency purposes. They can play a very useful role in commercial activities. However, I accept that there are some concerns about both the noise and nuisance value which need to be addressed.
Lord Annan: My Lords, how often is the flight path over central London to Heathrow changed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter. If the noble Lord is referring to the general flight path, there are a limited number of routes. Helicopters are an entirely different matter.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, can the Minister refer to the danger from noise to the hearing of those at play? I refer to the noise from discotheques, which the young seem to enjoy, and which very often is at a dangerous level?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. The Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance on
838
the level of noise and, in the context of its responsibility for workers in discotheques and other places, attempts to enforce those standards. There is a problem and it is being addressed.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is a perception that work is usually carried out inside buildings and that some people may have the misconception that because they are engaged in agriculture and work out of doors noisy machinery will not affect them and they therefore do not need to wear ear defenders? Does the Minister agree that an enormous amount of social isolation is incurred as a result of deafness and that many young men who operate machines such as chainsaws are in danger of impairing their hearing? What is being done to inform them of the dangers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the noble Countess that there are dangers in working in the open air with certain machinery and that the same awareness of the risks does not appear to be present. Information is provided by employers in the agricultural and construction industries on the same basis as in other work situations. By and large, the same regulations apply, but I accept that there is a greater difficulty with enforcement in those areas.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what discussions the Health and Safety Executive has had with the Ministry of Defence about the hearing of servicemen which is often degraded by high decibel levels of noise emitted by both equipment and weapons systems?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I had better write to the noble Earl with reference to current servicemen. I am not aware of specific discussions. However, I know that the Ministry of Defence is concerned about the matter. As regards service pensioners, noble Lords may be aware that my noble friend Lady Hollis has conducted two independent inquiries since the advent of this Government. Those experts concur with the previous position: that the hearing loss incurred during service life is not worse for elderly people than it would otherwise have been. My noble colleagues are keeping the matter under review.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what safeguards are in place to protect those in properties adjoining the premises in which the noise is generated from damage to their hearing rather than the hearing of those working in the building itself?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, both the environmental health Acts and the law of nuisance would apply in such circumstances. It would not, however, be the direct responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, what progress is being made with regard to the noise emissions from heavy commercial vehicles?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the manufacturers of new heavy commercial vehicles are engaged in improving

839
standards relating to the creation of noise. As regards roadside noise, the noble Earl will know that there is a substantial programme by the Vehicle Inspectorate to check the noise levels of all HGVs. Spot checks are carried out.

"Rema" Investigation
3.31 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking following the sinking of the "Rema" off Whitby, North Yorkshire, with the death of five members of the crew.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Belize registered "Rema" sank on 25th April 1998 with the loss of all four (rather than five) members of her crew. All the crew were British nationals. Although the ship is foreign flagged and sank outside our territorial waters, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch is undertaking an investigation into the loss. The investigation has included underwater examination of the vessel, part funded by the ship's insurers. The investigation is ongoing.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he accept that the first statement was the most relevant: that it is a Belize registered vessel? Does the noble Lord accept that Belize has one of the worst records of the so-called flag of convenience countries in that area despite being a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea? Does he accept that Belize is not a far-off country run by people over whom we have no control? Is he aware that the Belize merchant marine registry has, as a 50 per cent. shareholder, a company chaired by Mr. Michael Ashcroft, who as far as I am aware is the acting treasurer of the Conservative Party? Will he use his influence to ensure that Mr. Ashcroft procures the compliance of Belize in particular with the provisions of Article 86 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea that there must be a genuine link between the flag state and the registered ship? Were that to happen, does he agree that these accidents would be less likely to occur?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, with reference to the latter part of the noble Lord's question, I suspect that it is not for me to answer on the conduct of the treasurer of the Conservative Party. As noble Lords will know, in past life I have had cause to look at the finances of the Conservative Party and people involved in it, first with envy and then with horror. It appears that things have not changed.
On the central question, it is true that the Belize register has a pretty poor record. Considerable anxiety has been expressed in the maritime community about that record. Until the investigator's report has been completed, it would be wrong for me to indicate whether there is a direct relationship between that and the accident.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, does the Minister accept that we on this side of the House agree
840
very much with his last statement: that it would be wrong to come to any conclusion until the final report of the MAIB is published?
Secondly, does the noble Lord agree with me about the very tenuous link between Mr. Michael Ashcroft and his interest in the Belize register and the tragic sinking of this ship? Can the Minister say what possible link there can be? Does he agree also that this ship sank a year ago? It is therefore difficult to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, should decide that it is a topical question for this particular Thursday.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that may be a question for the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I suspect that it is a topical question because the issue had recent substantial media coverage.
In terms of who runs the Belize register, it is somewhat indirect but nevertheless of interest as to how that register is run. The fact of the matter is that there has been a poor record in terms of number of ships lost and the general level of safety in those ships. That is a matter of concern. As the noble Lord and I have indicated, that may or may not have had a direct effect on the nature of this tragic accident.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Minister agree with me that this question about a sinking which took place more than a year ago is indeed an abuse of the topical questions offer? Will he further agree that the question put down by my noble friend Lord Monro about job losses caused by Kvaerner' s decision earlier this week, including 2,000 job losses in Govan on the Clyde, is more relevant and topical? The Liberal Democrat Party is showing its usual propensity to operate the politics of the gutter while at the same time pretending that it is above those matters.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, recognising that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, never descends to the politics of the gutter, I believe that the substance of his question is a matter for the House authorities and not for me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when we refer to flags of convenience, to whose convenience are we referring?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is normally to unscrupulous owners. However, we have pointed historically to many countries which have run flags of convenience which now have effective maritime systems. We should not ignore that. But from the facts it does not appear that Belize is one of them.
Lord Newby: My Lords, whether or not being the chairman of a company which has a 50 per cent. interest in the Belize register of shipping is a tenuous link, does the Minister agree that the public realm would be served well if there were a statutory requirement for large

841
donations to any political party to be registered by the donor so that people could then form their own views as to whether potential conflicts of interest might arise?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as noble Lords will know, I have long held that view. But the issue is incredibly wide of the Question. Nevertheless, I congratulate the noble Lord on getting the point in.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Morris of Castle Morris be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the late Lord Dean of Beswick.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
3.38 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (Cm 4262).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary published the report of the inquiry into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence on 24th February, he promised to publish a detailed action plan. He fulfilled that promise on 23rd March. He set out in detail the Government's response to all 70 recommendations. I am glad that we have the opportunity today to debate this vital report. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will remember that he raised a question on the issue. I believe that it was generally agreed by all sides of the House that we should have as prompt a debate as possible. Perhaps I may say on a personal basis how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, whose interest in and care and scruple about these matters is well known to all of us.
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Home Secretary's Action Plan provides a framework for a major programme to bring about significant and long overdue improvements. Much of the programme of work has already begun. Most of the recommendations should be in place by the end of this year, and the remainder within three years.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is taking personal responsibility for the delivery of that programme. He will chair a steering group to oversee and monitor progress. The group will include members from the Race Relations Forum, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Black Police Association, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police
842
Officers, the Police Federation, the Superintendents' Association, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
I know that my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland are themselves considering carefully the implications of the report for those parts of the UK.
I hope that your Lordships have had the opportunity to look through the action plan. I do not believe that it would be a useful exercise to go through it line by line. I shall deal with the main elements of the plan. First, openness, accountability and the restoration of confidence. Restoring confidence in the police among all sections of the community and increasing openness and accountability—those concepts are not separate—are crucial. It is only through mutual trust that our Police Service will be able to work effectively for our community in all its aspects. The ministerial priority to improve trust and confidence in policing among ethnic minority communities will ensure that issues of central concern to those communities are given proper attention. Police performance in this context must improve and will be systematically assessed, as in other areas of their work.
HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary will be conducting a full inspection of the Metropolitan Police to review their community and race relations strategy. It will also involve a focused examination of unsolved murder investigations. It is right to note that nothing of this size and complexity has been undertaken before. The preparatory work is well underway and the inspection teams will start their work later in the month.
New police discipline arrangements took effect from 1st April. Key elements of change include introducing the civil standard of proof (referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholokia, on a number of occasions in this House), a fast track procedure which will deal swiftly with officers caught committing various criminal offences and, for the first time and long overdue, separate formal procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance.
We have accepted the inquiry's recommendation to consider an independent complaints system. Work in fact was already underway on this following the Home Affairs Select Committee report. A detailed feasibility study is being carried out and will be completed by April next year.
The inquiry raised concerns about the accountability of the Metropolitan Police in comparison with other police forces. The establishment of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) will profoundly change the accountability of the Metropolitan Police to the communities it serves. The Greater London Authority Bill, which recently passed its Committee stage in another place, will establish the MPA with virtually the same structure, functions and powers as police authorities outside London. The differences are legitimately explained on the basis that the Metropolitan Police will continue to have national and international functions.
I turn to freedom of information. Openness has a very important role to play in restoring public confidence. We hope to publish a draft Bill and consultation paper on freedom of information in May. Under our proposals all aspects of policing will be covered by freedom of

843
information legislation. We propose that there will be two specific categories—information relating to informers and information relating to an investigation or prosecution—where information will be exempt from disclosure. There will he no statutory right of access to such information, although information relating to an investigation or prosecution is, of course, disclosed to a defendant when a case comes to court. However, information relating to the conduct of any such investigation—for example, how many officers are on the case, whether a computer system is being used, or what training and experience officers have—would be disclosable subject to the appropriate harm test.
There is much more, I readily recognise, to freedom of information than legislation. There is a substantial amount of work to be done to ensure that there is real change towards greater openness in all public services, including, but by no means limited to, the police.
Effective race equality training is another crucial issue. The Government agree with the recommendation that all police staff, including CID and support staff, need such training. Ethnic minorities must be involved in the development and deli very of this training, otherwise we shall have no acceptable appropriate or workable systems.
The National Police Training organisation is already working with ACPO to develop a comprehensive programme which addresses the training issues highlighted by the inquiry. It involves review and revision of existing provision; setting clear standards for the design and deli very of training; and identifying the best delivery methods. The House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs is conducting an inquiry into the whole area of police training and is expected to report soon. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has meanwhile been conducting a thematic review of police training. Once my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has received and considered both reports he will announce further measures of reform.
We all want a police service which fully reflects the racial diversity of the communities it serves. We still have a long way to go. As your Lordships will have noted, yesterday the Home Secretary chaired a national conference attended by all chief constables and police authorities to tackle the issue of recruitment. The issue of recruitment is too simplistic a measure for us to rely on. Apart from recruitment, we must put our minds seriously, consistently and deliberately to retention and proper promotion. That issue is not limited to the Police Service; it obtains similarly in the Prison Service and the Probation Service, for which I have personal responsibility.
The Home Secretary set targets to increase the recruitment of minority ethnic officers and to improve their career progression. Those targets are challenging but achievable and forces will be required to report on progress. What came out most powerfully from the conference is that the Police Service, when it fails to recruit a fair and proper share of young black and Asian people, is itself the loser because it misses out on the considerable talent which is available to be tapped.
We want to raise standards by attracting good recruits. Yesterday the Home Secretary published Home Office research on the career progression of ethnic minority
844
police officers. Key findings showed the following results: ethnic minority applicants are less likely than white applicants to be offered an interview, receive a formal offer of employment or to be appointed on probation; retention figures for ethnic minority officers have deteriorated over the past four years, while those for white officers have improved; ethnic minority officers are twice as likely as white officers to resign from the service; and the rate of dismissal for ethnic minority officers is two to three times higher than that for white officers. Therefore, if there ever were the instinctive response that Sir William Macpherson's language was over-vigorous, I would suggest to your Lordships that that immediate response was misplaced.
We know from the findings of the research that, on average, the progress of ethnic minority officers through the promotion process is slower than that of their white colleagues. That is why we include targets for retention and progression as well as for recruitment. We need to show those in the ethnic minority communities that joining the Police Service is a very worthwhile career arid that their service, loyalty and commitment will be valued in future.
I suggest that only two rational alternative conclusions can be drawn from those figures: first, that our friends and colleagues from the ethnic minority communities simply lack talent; and, secondly, that they are discriminated against. I believe that the latter is undoubtedly the case.
I turn to racial incidents and crime. We know that there has been significant under-recording of racist incidents and a lack of understanding by some police officers of what such an incident is. One reason is that the police are used to gathering evidence to put before a court, so they apply an evidential test before deciding whether or not to record an incident as racist. Recording racist incidents is not only about that; it is about monitoring the level of perceived racist activity in society. In accepting the inquiry's simplified definition that a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person, I hope that we can tackle that This definition is not in substance a new one; it is a simplified revision of one recommended by ACPO, as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary stated in Winning the Race:
"In essence, an incident has a racial element if anyone says it has".
Some have criticised the definition on the grounds of its subjectivity. But this is a definition for the reporting and recording of such crimes as the starting-point of any investigation. Whether any such alleged crimes are to be the subject of conviction is a matter for the court's objective judgment. Noble Lords will remember that under the Crime and Disorder Act, with general support from all corners of this House, we established new offences of racially aggravated crime.
We accept the need which Sir William Macpherson identified for a co-ordinated response to racist incidents. The Racist Incidents Standing Committee, chaired by the Home Office, has published a good practice guide on effective multi-agency working.
Crime and disorder partnerships—a key aspect of the new Act—can also play a major role in addressing racist crime. The Home Office guidance to such partnerships emphasises the great importance that we attach to

845
involving minority ethnic groups in the formulation, implementation and monitoring strategies to reduce crime and disorder. We intend to ask the Audit Commission and the Inspectorate of Constabulary to consider in particular how well partnerships have dealt with the issues raised by the inquiry.
On the issue of stop and search, we strongly believe that the powers of stop and search are important for the prevention and detection of crime in appropriate circumstances. We accept that there may be a disproportionate use of both powers against ethnic minority communities and that therefore discrimination on racial grounds is likely to be one of the factors. We have commissioned research within the Home Office to gather information on current practices within different forces to assess the practical implications of the inquiry's recommendations. I welcome the five pilot projects in the Metropolitan Police—Tottenham, Brixton, Hounslow, Plumstead and Kingston—which are developing strategies to use these powers effectively. Following evaluation, we will review the recording of such stops and, if necessary, introduce new arrangements by the end of next year.
I turn to prevention and the role of education. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, Mr. Blunkett, is taking a number of steps to promote cultural diversity and to prevent racism in our schools. Citizenship education, which will foster an understanding of cultural diversity in Britain (from which we all benefit and have done historically) has a prominent place in the revised national curriculum.
We are determined to prevent children being tormented by racist bullying. The DfEE will ensure that all schools have effective anti-bullying policies to deal effectively with incidents of racial harassment. Further steps will be taken to ensure that all racist incidents are recorded and that parents and governors are informed of the nature of the incident and the action taken to deal with it.
There were other recommendations to which I turn. We accept the recommendation that consideration should be given to permitting prosecution after acquittal where fresh viable evidence is presented. I stress that the recommendation was only to consider that; that is all that has been accepted; and we have asked the Law commission to consider this recommendation. I suggest that that is the proper way to look at such a fundamental change: to put it to an expert body which is not swayed by partisan opinion or public agitation.
We will accept the recommendation to consider amending the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour and offences involving the possession of offensive weapons in the home.
The Home Secretary has made it perfectly plain that we have serious reservations in this context about going beyond the law as it stands. Nobody who has seen the videos recently could fail to have concern, but we need to balance what the law can do and what it is capable of bringing about; and to bear in mind the right to privacy in family life, particularly for those whose conduct we detest and despise. We hope to come to conclusions on that matter by the end of this year.
As regards race equality in Britain, we look to an inclusive society where people are treated equally, regardless of race; where equality of opportunity is key; and where, as a society, we celebrate diversity. The nature of our country—to use a phrase which I still respect, our Britishness—has been shaped by many different peoples over the centuries who have broadened our languages, our customs and our culture. I do not say that the Norman invasion was immediately welcomed in Wales, but we have managed to adapt and adopt, and I dare say that everyone who pauses for a moment and looks at what a great country ours is and could better become, recognises that there is no one stream that contributes to the diversity, quality and value of our life here.
The inquiry recommended that the Government should extend the Race Relations Act to the police. We agree, but we will go further and extend that Act to all public services.
It is time for the public service to put its own house in order on race equality, something which is long overdue. As employers, our track record in the Home Office could be much better. Therefore, Jack Straw is setting targets in the Home Office and its services for recruitment and progression of ethnic minority staff. We expect colleagues in other departments to do just that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly recognises that the problem is substantially greater than that merely of the Police Service. It relates, as far as the Home Office is concerned, to the Prison Department and the Immigration Nationality Department. Will there be a study of career progression similar to that which he identified in relation to the Police Service, and will the Home Office publish the results?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can certainly speak for the Prison Service because I spoke to the Prison Officers' Association Race Relations Committee yesterday on these matters. I can also speak for the Probation Service. My belief, as the noble Lord recognises, is that if one has research material, it is pointless hiding it. It is essential that it should be published for a number of reasons: first, those who know that research material is going to be published have a very powerful incentive to improve their own performance; secondly, unless someone publishes such material, one cannot sensibly monitor; thirdly, my belief is that it is public property.
Eighteen years ago we were thinking together how to take forward Lord Scarman's recommendations. Why, almost 20 years later, are we confronted with the findings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry; and, even more powerfully, are we to contemplate joining together in a similar debate in 10, 15 or 20 years' time, wondering why we failed so abysmally?
I do not pretend that this is easy work. The research is not difficult; the conclusions are not difficult; nor is the monitoring. It is coaxing, encouraging and making—if one has to—people change that is the difficult task. I have often said—I do not apologise for repeating it—that very often the most dangerous person in our society is the person who says, "I haven't a racist bone in my body". Such people are dangerous because they believe it; they

847
are dangerous because they are extremely nice people; and they are dangerous because they do not know what they do not know. That applies to all of us, creatures as we are of upbringing and prejudice. Therefore the changes which are due to the Lawrence family will work only if they are systematic and are embraced by a changed culture in the Police Service as well as in its practice. They are therefore not capable of being regarded as an optional extra.
The core task of policing is to provide a police service in which all sections of society can have trust and confidence. No police service can work in a civilised society without that trust and confidence. We are determined not to be distracted this time. We will take forward all the recommendations as a package. For each of the areas covered by the recommendations, the action plan sets out, first, the main programme of work; secondly, who will have lead responsibility for taking the work forward; thirdly, the milestones for progress in each area; and, fourthly, how we will review and assess outcomes. The steering group will meet for the first time in early May. As a moral obligation, we must keep up the momentum. Reverting to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, we will publish an annual report on progress.
This is a comprehensive programme of action. Some might say that it is over-ambition which has brought us to this. I repudiate that. It is a matter of simple fairness and duty. We must build a society where everyone, irrespective of colour, race or religion, has a fair, decent, equal opportunity to succeed. It is worth looking at the action plan. Every recommendation is addressed either "Accept", "Accept in principle" or "Accept in part". When one sees the recommendation which is set out on the left of the page, one also sees on the right of the page "Lead responsibility"; and all the detail is there set out. I say quite objectively that this is a very considerable, very heartening and remarkable piece of work. We have to look for the fundamental change which I have outlined. It is a very difficult task indeed. It is a very long journey upon which we have all embarked. I hope and trust that everyone in the House will think that we owe nothing less. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (Cm 4262).—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
4.2 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I welcome this timely and important debate. It has given the Home Office an opportunity to give your Lordships the considered opinions to which it has come on the Macpherson Report and the measures it is setting in train in response to the recommendations. We are all particularly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, whose contribution today—I am sure to all our deliberations—will be most valuable.
The Macpherson Report's detailed explanation of what happened in the tragic case of Stephen Lawrence and how it all went wrong is clear, authoritative and appalling—appalling to read, let alone to have lived through, as the Lawrence family has done. The family has all our
848
sympathy for its agony throughout this whole process. Although the report is based on this one case, it has much more general messages for the police, for other parts of the public sector and for our society. Nothing can bring back Stephen Lawrence. Whatever the police have done, that was the case from the time he was attacked. But society's response to this report—by "society's response" I mean the response of government, Parliament, the police service and the whole public sector—is crucial to the future harmonious life of this country. The implementation of the report has to go much wider than the Metropolitan Police and the whole police service, a point which the Minister rightly made at intervals throughout his speech. Nevertheless, the police are the starting point and the focus of the report.
I wish to say at the start that the police in this country do a good job—better than most police forces in the world. Their success over the years, despite their relatively small numbers by international standards, is traditionally based on mutual trust. But that trust—which most of us in your Lordships' House, being of a particular generation and upbringing, tend to take for granted—does not exist between the police and large numbers of our fellow citizens from the ethnic minorities. That mutual trust is at the core of British policing and at the core of the issues in the report. I do not think it can ever be taken for granted with any section of the population. It has slipped away to some extent in recent years, partly with the advent of cars, radios and so on, which offer more efficient ways of using policemen and policewomen than having them on the beat on foot. Many of the policemen portrayed on television over the years have been bad role models and bad examples for the public to see. Above all, the lack of mutual trust with the ethnic minority members of our community reflects the failure to recruit, train and promote sufficient policemen and policewomen from the ethnic minorities.
In that matter it is difficult to distinguish between cause and effect. The difficulties with recruitment are the effect of the lack of mutual trust, just as much as they are the cause of subsequent lack of mutual trust. In seeking ways to ensure that the situation improves, the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary is right to focus on the numbers in the different forces. But it is one thing to talk about recruiting more police from the ethnic minorities and quite another to achieve it. It is not a novel idea to say that we need more police from the ethnic minorities. Police chiefs—notably in the Metropolitan Police—have struggled to achieve just that. Indeed, they have had some success, particularly in the past four or five years in the case of the Metropolitan Police. That should give us hope that the circle of cause and effect can be broken, provided that there is—as there inevitably will be—greater emphasis on solving the problems and changing attitudes where necessary.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am very much in line with what the noble Lord has said, but does he not agree that part and parcel of the task of building up confidence, particularly among ethnic minority communities, lies in grappling with the problems when they arise, not seeking to kick them into touch and hoping

849
that they will disappear? I fear that was very much the case in relation to the events that preceded the Macpherson inquiry.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: Yes, my Lords, it is both. It is trying to see what one might call the strategic position and making long-term changes. It is also reacting to individual incidents when they occur. No one can be proud of the way in which this tragic incident was reacted to.
The number of ethnic minority policemen and women who are recruited, promoted and retained will be vital performance indicators in the future. I am an accountant, for my sins (which must be great), and accountants like to watch numbers to measure success. I believe that it is right to measure recruitment in this case rather than absolute numbers. That would be realistic. The absolute numbers will follow more gradually once recruitment improves, provided that retention and promotion are also addressed.
However, without additional resources, recruitment will be difficult. Many of the recommendations in the report come back to the question of resources. It will obviously be easier to recruit more police from our ethnic minorities if the overall number in the police is rising rather than falling, as it is at present. The question of resources is considered right at the beginning of the Home Secretary's action plan, on page two. That is not surprising. However, I am sorry that it is not considered in a more positive way. The Minister emphasised the problems of retention and, as I have said, I agree with him on that. Tackling the problems of recruitment, retention and promotion is the key to mutual trust.
There are many other recommendations in the report. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to go through all of them. They are covered in detail in the document. I agree with most of the recommendations and the proposed actions. As the Minister stated, there is to be an annual report which will provide opportunities to consider the progress of the good intentions. I shall refer to one or two of the detailed recommendations in a moment.
The report begins with a devastating description of the incompetence of the investigation of the Stephen Lawrence case. It is easy to ascribe blame in general, and sometimes in particular. However, it is not so easy to attribute motive. The Macpherson Report reached the conclusion that the only possible explanation for the incompetence was racism. More precisely, it concluded that the downgrading of the priority of the investigation and the lack of vigour shown was because of the race of the victim. On reading the report, I was not quite as convinced of that fact as were members of the inquiry; but, they have obviously considered the matter most carefully and in great detail. However, it bears on the question of institutional racism and the difficulty of dealing with unconscious racism. As the Minister rightly said, that is the most difficult and dangerous kind of racism.
In explaining any event—not just the kind of events described in the documents—people may see it in different ways. It has been my observation in life that when somebody is promoted and others are not, the reasons for the promotion are frequently thought by those
850
who are not promoted to be invalid and the result of some sort of prejudice. That applies extremely widely. Those of us who, from time to time, have experience of choosing people for promotion, as well as being on the receiving end of the process, know just how difficult that process is and how easy it is to misunderstand. As Scotsmen will appreciate with a name like "Johnny Cope", I am always cautious about quoting Robbie Burns who wisely pointed out the rare value of the gift of being able to see ourselves as others see us.
People sometimes see racism where it does not exist, as well as seeing it where it does exist but is unconscious and, of course, where it is conscious and deliberate. We must recognise that the new definition of racist incident that is to be used will mean an inevitable leap in the reporting and recording of racist incidents. Because, as the Minister described, it is a rather different definition, it should be seen for what it is; that is, a leap in the recording rather than necessarily a leap in the incidents. It will only be after a year or two, when the recording has been carried out on the new basis, that the significance of the numbers rising or falling will be seen.
Incidents of deliberate racism, wherever they occur, must be dealt with most strongly. Incidents of unconscious or unintentional racism call for education and training. That is rightly emphasised in the report, the recommendations and in the reaction of the Home Office to them. Incidents of perceived racism call for understanding and, particularly, explanation. That aspect is also important.
I have mentioned the incompetence in the investigation. I have to say that there was also some incompetence in the Home Office over the publication of the report. I am fortunate to live far enough away from London, at least at the weekends, to have received a copy of the Sunday Telegraph which published the leak of the report unlike the subsequent copies received by those who normally read the last editions. I repeat the observation I made at the time that I believe the leak to be inexcusable. The Treasury, of which I have some experience, does not leak Budget secrets over months because it takes great care not to. Both Ministers and civil servants attach great importance to the matter. The Home Office had the document for only a few days and there was this leak which did not look like an accident. A Home Office official was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph in connection with it. The leak seemed deliberately designed to destabilise the Metropolitan Commissioner of Police.
However, the immediate point is that the leak inquiry has now been continuing for some seven weeks. One of the messages from the Macpherson Report is that in investigations, leads quickly go cold. It seems to me that we should be informed of the progress of the inquiry. The distribution of the report within the Home Office was apparently limited to very few people, each of whom could presumably have been interviewed by the inquiry for days by now.
The leak was followed by the injunction. The horse had been let out, but the Home Secretary was still busy closing the door, and that is not very effective in a stable. David Pannick, QC, the well-known commentator, said that it was wrong to grant the injunction, let alone to ask

851
for it. After all that, the wrong version of the report was published. I refer to Appendix 11 in particular. In my judgment, the responsibility for that lies within the Home Office just as much as with the inquiry team.
I turn to the individual recommendations. There are important recommendations on the subject of police complaints and police discipline. We shall have the opportunity to return to the subject of complaints because the system is to be further considered. As regards discipline, new procedures came into force on 1st April. It is obviously too early to say much about those but we need to keep them under review in practice.
The action plan also states, politely, that the Home Office is reviewing the question of forfeiture of pensions. I am not sure whether that is not just pushing it into the long grass. I suspect it may be and that that may well be right. The action plan states that forfeiture of pensions is available at present in limited circumstances. However, great caution is required on this matter if unfairness is not to result. It seems to me to be much more important to consider the ability of people to retire early while under investigation rather than to reconsider the matter after they have been allowed to retire early in that way.
The report contains an interesting recommendation on prosecution after acquittal. That recommendation has been "accepted" in that the Law Commission is to look at it and I have no doubt that it will do that thoroughly. But I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that the Scottish Law Commission will also be involved because I understand that the position is slightly different there and the matter needs to be looked at jointly.
One of the most difficult recommendations concerns the creation of an offence relating to racist words spoken in private. The Home Office accepted that in the sense that it has been taken on board for consideration, but it clearly recognises the difficulty of the proposal. It is not clear to me how the current law could be improved with advantage. For the moment we must wait to see what the review produces.
I started by saying that on the whole our police do an excellent job of the greatest difficulty and complexity, particularly in modern times, on behalf of the whole of our society. The report rightly criticises them and makes recommendations for essential improvements. But it is right also for us to recognise the problems that they face. We must not be overwhelmed by those problems, but tackle them realistically and efficiently.
The police are already subject to a lot of scrutiny and will be subject to even more. They come under police authorities, and before long we shall be considering the London police authority in connection with the Greater London Authority Bill. They are daily in touch with, and have to answer to, the courts for a lot of their activities. Parliament studies them more or less continuously with the Select Committee on Home Affairs and ourselves. They are inspected by the Chief Inspector with additional powers. They are examined by the Audit Commission. They are subject to the Police Complaints Authority, also now to be stepped up, and they are now to be subject to the Race Relations Board—rightly, although clearly, as has already been said, that must apply to other public services as well.
852
In the midst of all that it is important that the police do not develop an inferiority complex and defensive reaction to those reports, and that they are not distracted from the actual job of policing by having to answer those reports. If they are to handle continually being examined by all those bodies, they will need to divert resources to answering all their inquiries, let alone implementing the recommendations of the Macpherson Report. In all the notes of the bodies responsible for implementing bits of this report, as the Minister said, the department which has the lead responsibility is cited on each page, but nowhere do the words "Her Majesty's Treasury" appear as the department with the lead responsibility. However, the Treasury will be as important as any other department in ensuring that the recommendations of the report are carried out and that the police are able to respond to them properly.
This is not a report with messages for the police alone. It is sometimes said that these British islands are not big enough to accommodate different ethnic groups. In my view, the reverse is true; that is, these islands are not big enough to allow us to live separate lives in isolated groups or parallel cultures. I believe that fiercely with regard to Northern Ireland and to race in all parts of the kingdom.
We British have always been a mixed lot. The Minister referred to the Norman conquest, but we English were mixed before then—the very words "Anglo Saxon" indicate that—and that was before we got mixed up with the Celts. Over the 900 years since then, many more have come, including those in recent years, and formed part of the mix. It is right to point out also that many of our people have gone and settled in other parts of the globe. We must respect our fellow citizens equally. It is their birthright as humans, their birthright as children of God and their birthright as British citizens, white or black.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome this debate. I am delighted that we shall have the opportunity to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Imbert. I knew him well when I worked at the Commission for Racial Equality and he was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. He made a point of attending meetings of many of the ethnic minority organisations during his time there. He made it clear at that time that consultation meant consulting all the diverse communities. It is to his credit that as part of the Government's strategy on Macpherson's report we are today advocating once again the need to dismantle barriers and consult our diverse, multi-racial communities.
We welcomed the report of Sir William Macpherson's inquiry when it was published; we also welcomed the Statement of the Home Secretary when it was read out in your Lordships' House. It should therefore come as no surprise that we broadly support the action plan setting out how the Government will take forward the recommendations contained in the report. To talk about leaks, about injunctions or for that matter about whether or not the inquiry should have been held is simply diverting away from the conclusions in the report.
Yesterday I attended the Home Secretary's national conference on recruitment, retention and progression of black and Asian police officers held at Southampton. The

853
participants were chief constables and police authority chairs. I did not get the impression from any of them that they were under pressure. My impression was that they all wanted to get along and to try to implement almost all the recommendations that were put to them. Also, I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, making one of the major keynote speeches at that conference.
The objective, rightly, was to lay an agenda to ensure that police forces reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. I was delighted to see the Government's current thinking on targets relating to this crucial area of policing in our multi-racial society. There is a lot of misunderstanding about setting targets in recruitment. I say that having sat in this House and heard again and again people talk of targets as quotas. Your Lordships' House is therefore no exception when we confuse setting targets with positive discrimination in favour of black and Asian recruits. That is not so. Positive discrimination is unlawful under the Race Relations Act. Moreover, black and Asian communities resent any implications that they are being recruited simply to make up the numbers or that their appointment would lower the recruitment standards set by public bodies. I hope that that will be a clear message from your Lordships' House.
Targets are not and never have been quotas. They are not unlawful as long as they are not achieved by racially discriminatory methods. There is no reason why the percentage of ethnic minority employees should not be significantly raised in many organisations and I look forward to similar initiatives in other government departments and public bodies to ensure that they also have clear targets to make sure that the diversity is reflected in all walks of life in this country.
There have been adversarial contacts between the police and the black community for a long time and there is therefore a need to take positive action. That means taking a series of measures to encourage and train applicants to help them fit jobs or posts in which they have been underrepresented. That will also help to arrest the pernicious racism that seems to have affected the police and policing decisions which was so clearly identified by the Macpherson report.
It is clear that targets alone are not sufficient. We need to develop a strategy to ensure that all members of society are able to compete from the same starting line—or, as we so often say, we need to establish a level playing field. Positive action, not positive discrimination, means recognising and developing potential which has not been used before because of past discrimination and disadvantage. It is about encouraging applications from suitable ethnic minority men and women so that they can be considered equally with other candidates. It is about providing training for ethnic minority men and women to help fit them for particular work so that they can be considered equally with other candidates. Positive action does not mean selecting a certain number of ethnic minority employees irrespective of merit to give the organisation a good image while ignoring action to remove racial discrimination in general.
854
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was right when he said at the time of repeating the Home Secretary's Statement that,
"the ethnic minorities … are filled with anger, distress, bitterness and fury that we cannot even begin to guess at: and they are right".—[Official Report, 24/2/99; col. 1166.]
We need to convert these factors into a confidence-building exercise. That will come with targeting and positive action in the recruitment of black and Asian people. The police have made a start, but could we say the same about other institutions?
What about the Government? We have now had a settled black and Asian community in this country for over 50 years. What about the record of the Home Office? I was not surprised that the Minister did not defend it. Why is it that most of its black staff are at the bottom of the promotion ladder? When will we see senior appointments in the Civil Service which will reflect our multi-racial society? To put it even more bluntly, when can we expect to see the first black chief constable, the first black chief probation officer, the first black chief Crown prosecutor or for that matter the first black chief prison governor or a chief black fire officer? Perhaps I may cite an example. When I worked for the Police Complaints Authority, at least 18 per cent. of the complaints against the police came from persons of ethnic minority origins. I visited many forces across the country, but I never came across a single black officer who worked in the police complaints department.
I am pleased to note that the Home Secretary will take personal responsibility for bringing about the changes which have been identified. I welcome the setting up of the steering group about which the Minister talked. However, even at this late stage I would urge him not to miss out the valuable contribution that some of the key voluntary organisations make in this country. Indeed, we should make sure that they are part of this particular group. Of course, I have a vested interest in this respect as I am chair of NACRO.
No sensible person would ignore the definition of "institutional racism" which was provided by the report. I do not intend to quote it again. However, we must never forget that there are many decent, hard-working men and women who contribute positively to good race relations in this country. Indeed, as I have said before—and I repeat it—we have a police force which is the envy of the world, but that does not mean that it could not be better. It is the action of a few who taint their good name. Police officers should realise that they have far-reaching powers over the lives of ordinary people. Therefore, there must be effective safeguards against their misuse. It is the duty of every police officer to root out those who give the force a bad name. Failure to do this means that the force will be perceived as institutionally racist. The proposed reform of the police discipline procedures is to be welcomed but we should also develop a determined culture which will not tolerate racist officers whether in the streets or in police canteens.
We must not allow ourselves to be deluded that by sorting out our policing problems we can put our hands on our hearts and say that all will now be fine. That is a recipe for disaster. The reason why pernicious racism

855
filters through many of our institutions is that we fail to arrest this at every level in our society. It is not just the police who failed in the case of Stephen Lawrence; indeed, we must all share the blame for what happened on that dreadful night. We have failed to arrest racism, which is endemic in our society and which has affected our lives, our attitudes and our society.
It is for those reasons that I welcome the contribution of the Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Julie Mellor, who said:
"Macpherson's recommendations are clearly focused on the issue of racial equality. However, it also raises the broader social justice issues about how we create public services that meet the needs of all of our citizens. It prompts us to think about how we can create services that are relevant and are accessible for all and treat all with dignity and respect".
I am delighted that the Home Secretary has recognised that and that his action plan sets out the necessary strategy.
However, perhaps I may spell out six crucial areas where there ought not to be any compromise in its implementation. The first is about responsibility. Acting on this report—the most important development for race and criminal justice since the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman—is the responsibility of the whole criminal justice system and not just the police. The CPS, the courts, the legal professions and the prison and probation services must work with local authorities and communities to guarantee justice and equality for all. The Criminal Justice Consultative Council must give a clear lead to the 23 area criminal justice liaison committees to make this their top priority for the coming months. They must play a crucial co-ordination role across national and local government agencies. The Government must give top commitment to implementation, which must be sustained over many years and not forgotten after a year when the media interest dies down.
The second area is about repairing the damage. This is an opportunity to repair the damage done to community relations and to redress unfairness and discrimination in the criminal justice system. It is an opportunity which must not be wasted. Confidence in the justice system must be restored. Justice and fairness in action must be demonstrated, every day and in every situation for everyone. Responses to racially motivated crime must be seen in the context of overall police operations. PACE, stop and search and other police powers have a disproportionate impact on the life of black communities and must be investigated urgently. Again, I welcome a very clear stress on this from the report of the inquiry.
The third area relates to accountability. Accountability and consultation with local communities must be restructured, strengthened and properly resourced. Community police consultative groups must become more dynamic, effective and widely representative in a way that they have not been so far. Greater involvement in local criminal justice systems—for example, by expanding the lay visitor model to other aspects of police work and by using lay user groups as we do with other agencies—must be part of a statutory requirement. A two-way dialogue between young people and police officers is crucial.
856
A realistic debate is needed on problems of local crime and police responses which involves local communities in establishing the problems and the strategies needed to tackle them. Local authority and police crime prevention forums (established by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) must ensure that local crime audits and strategies include views from and services for minority communities.
My fourth point relates to training. We welcome the report on this point. Joint training across criminal justice agencies should be introduced to promote a co-ordinated and consistent approach to fairness and equality in the delivery of justice. Training must have a direct impact on daily operations and working practices. It must tackle the stereotyping and assumptions that lead black people to be perceived as suspects rather than as victims, witnesses, professional colleagues or partners in tackling crime.
The report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has pointed to disturbing evidence of racist banter and discriminatory behaviour directed by police at their minority colleagues. Add to these massive financial settlements in cases where civil action is brought against the police, and this would demonstrate that, despite considerable investment in training, the point at which police come into contact with black people is still an area of concern. This does not help ethnic minority recruitment into the police forces.
My fifth point is about education. There is a fundamental need for education—from primary school to higher education—about the harm of racism and discrimination. I hope that my noble friend will talk later about this aspect.
Finally, the Minister mentioned the review of the Race Relations Act, which I welcome. However, what we cannot tolerate are exemptions granted to the police and criminal justice agencies. We shall certainly support the Government in this measure, but we shall also want to know how serious the Government are about accepting a number of proposals to strengthen the Race Relations Act which have been proposed by the Commission for Racial Equality. These include a more straightforward power enabling the Commission for Racial Equality to conduct formal investigations; a new power enabling the commission to secure legally enforceable agreements to eliminate discrimination; a duty on all public bodies to promote racial equality; a clear and more comprehensive definition of indirect discrimination, ethnic monitoring and improved enforcement procedures. We need a clear timetable as regards when and in what form the Government will introduce the extended race relations legislation.
The Bishop of Croydon, the right reverend Wilfred Wood, in a recent article wrote:
"My personal belief is that a Macpherson type enquiry into Lily of the professions—education, trade unions, political parties, Parliament, law, medicine, broadcasting, the Church, Civil Service, etc. would have revealed much the same state of affairs—in similar devaluing of black people".

857
At the 1997 Labour Party Conference the Prime Minister Tony Blair said:
"We cannot be a beacon to the world unless the talents of all the people shine through. Not one black High Court judge, not one black Chief Constable or Permanent Secretary; not one black army officer above the rank of colonel. Not one Asian either. And not a record of pride for the British establishment. And not a record of pride for Parliament, that there are so few black and Asian MPs".
Let us hope that we do not have to wait for another tragedy to occur or another 50 years for this situation to change. The Government can count on our support as regards many of the Macpherson recommendations.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Imbert: My Lords, I stand before your Lordships today proudly but humbly on this first occasion that I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships. I speak on a subject which I think we all agree deserves our most serious attention. I shall, of course, beg your Lordships' pardon and understanding if unknowingly through my lack of knowledge of the proprieties and conventions of this House, I should trespass into forbidden territory. As I entered the House this afternoon I was reminded that two decades ago I spent six days talking with some terrorists and that I must stop speaking after six to eight minutes today!
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and all that surrounds it is a most serious matter. I take this opportunity to make my first contribution to the House because it would be remiss of me if, with my background, I did not offer some comments to your Lordships. Although I do not agree with every recommendation in the Macpherson Report I believe it has provided the catharsis for the police service, and indeed for many other organisations, to build a better and more trouble-free future for all citizens of this country, whatever their racial origin, religion, or colour of their skin.
It is important in any debate like this that every time we mention the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report we should be reminded that the report is not just a neatly bound bundle of papers but it is about the callous and gratuitous murder of a young man by racist thugs. It is a murder which will leave deep scars not only on the police service which has received severe censure, and on society which has witnessed the aftermath of the murder, but particularly it has left a deep and irreparable wound on Stephen's parents, his friends and members of his community which can never be fully healed. As Sir William Macpherson said,
"Stephen Lawrence's murder was … the deepest tragedy for his family. It was an affront to society".
I add that we all share the shame and the grief.
But it might be asked, "What do I know of such matters; that sense of desolation and imposed loneliness which is bottomless and overwhelming?" because only those who have experienced the awful suddenness of the death of a loved one in such barbaric circumstances will know the utter despair experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence.
858
There were other dimensions to this horrific murder that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence had to suffer; namely, the knowledge that it was racist, committed simply because Stephen's skin was black. The death of a young man in one's community is wholly tragic; the fact that the murder was committed because he was from that community is doubly horrific. The community itself must have felt beleaguered by the spectre of racism and seemingly ignored by those who should have been its protectors. The Macpherson Report deals at length with this latter point, and I shall touch upon that in just a moment or two.
I asked the question a moment ago, "What do I know of such matters?". I recall just a few years ago, within what seemed just a few short months, I had to visit and attempt to comfort a number of widows of officers who had been murdered while on duty, four children who had been cruelly orphaned, distraught and perplexed relatives and friends, and colleagues who had to continue to police the areas where their colleagues had been murdered.
One of the most harrowing times was when Police Constable Keith Blakelock was hacked to death. I met Mrs. Blakelock and her children, and I can see parallels in the depths of despair and anger with those experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence. There was, and still is, that chasm of frustration, of abandonment and understandable anger that no one stands convicted of these awful murders, that invisibly binds them together.
I know that the Metropolitan Police Service sincerely regrets it has not brought the killers to justice and has committed itself to continue its attempts to do so. In so far as the murder of Stephen Lawrence is concerned, the involvement of Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve and the recently created Racial and Violent Crime Task Force is an indication of this commitment.
Sir William Macpherson in his report has made many recommendations. The whole tragic matter and now the report itself must be seen, in the words of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, as a defining moment in the history of the Metropolitan Police. It must also be, on the basis of Sir William's definition of "institutional racism", a defining moment for so many organisations and professions throughout the length and breadth of this country. But the world looks back on defining moments with different eyes. Will we in 10 years' time be able to say we learnt the lesson and moved forward, or will we have failed to accept the criticisms for one reason or another and moved only to another defining moment, another crisis, another tragedy? I hope not.
The springboard for progress must be the Macpherson Report recommendations but, like so many reports which provide so much opportunity for us all to move forward, it also contains those seeds within it that, unless interpreted in a way that is understood by all, may damage the great majority of those upon whom we rely to build a new, better and non-discriminatory service. I have read the report in depth and believe I understand the meaning of the term "institutional racism" as now defined by Sir William. But as he himself says,
"the phrase has been the subject of much debate".
Although finally settling on its definition of "institutional racism" which at first sight seems to brand

859
all officers, of whatever ethnic origin, as racists, the inquiry report adds,
"It is vital to stress that neither academic debate nor the evidence presented to us leads us to say or to conclude that an accusation of institutional racism exists in the MPS … No such evidence is before us. Indeed the contrary is true".
The report continued,
"we say with emphasis that such an accusation does not mean or imply that every police officer is guilty of racism".
We must all be grateful to the inquiry team for making this clear. But the fact that it does so acknowledges not only the commissioner's early misgivings about the phrase but it seems that the drawn-out explanations of what it really means is a recognition that the phrase is likely to be misinterpreted.
My concern about the term "institutional racism" comes from what it implies. I ask how many people across the length and breadth of the country have read the complete definition and the qualifying comments given by Sir William.
The reason for my concern over the sweeping and simplistically interpreted expression stems from what this could now be doing to our police service and those whom it is endeavouring to serve. It is pleasing that within our country the basic unit of policing is a lone unarmed constable on vehicle or foot patrol. We must ensure that with all the definitions we create, we do not produce an environment in which those lone constables feel that they cannot execute their duty.
Having expressed my concerns about the possible difficulties that the definition will bring—and I sincerely hope that my fears are proved to be entirely misplaced—policing and life must go on. Your Lordships will be aware that the commissioner and the Metropolitan Police have, to move things forward, genuinely and fully embraced the new definition and are using it already as an agenda for change. However, it is vital that similar change must be embraced across society as a whole. 'There are many forms of racism within this country of ours.
Before I conclude, I must mention one of the most recent developments of the recommendations within the report. I refer to the conference held yesterday in Southampton on recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers into the police service, when targets under those headings were set. That has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. One of the most important parts of the Metropolitan Police Service's statement of common purpose and values—its mission statement—are the words:
"We must respond to well founded criticism with a willingness to change".
The commissioner and the Metropolitan Police have accepted and responded to criticism and their energy and commitment to desirable and necessary change—in particular, the Home Secretary's action plan—and the vigour with which that is being approached is significant.
The Metropolitan Police already has 865 ethnic minority officers, almost as many as the total establishment of some other police services. Some
860
13.9 per cent. of its special constables are from the ethnic minority community, as is nearly 14 per cent. of its civil support staff. The Metropolitan Police has taken note of the recent research on career progression of ethnic minority police officers, referred to already by the Minister. That is now reflected in the Metropolitan Police's own "policing diversity" initiatives and in the publication by the Ethnic Minority (Recruitment and Advancement) Working Group which contains recommendations on how to achieve a police service for all the people. Credit for that must go to the chair of the working group, Mr. Kingsley Peter, and all the hard-working and forward-looking members or that working group. Credit must go also to Mr. Indah Uppal, a member of the Metropolitan Police Committee, for the lead he has given and continues to give in supporting the drive to recruit more ethnic minority officers.
Those initiatives demonstrate most clearly the way in which the Metropolitan Police, under the leadership of its commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, and with the full and enthusiastic backing of that great majority of non-racist, courageous and fair-minded officers, special constables and civil staff of the Metropolitan Police, has taken full note of every aspect of this whole affair and the inquiry's conclusions.
As pleaded in the inquiry report, acceptance of the reality of the problem was the first arid foremost requirement. That has been achieved. The next was the hope that the impact of the case and the inquiry was such that everybody's conscience will ensure that the fundamental problems which have been exposed are treated radically so that there can be real change. I believe that we are seeing real evidence of that.
The Metropolitan Police is already championing and leading change which all other public bodies and large institutions will have to follow. It will show that the trust and confidence which we must have in our police service is not misplaced.
I conclude by repeating the words of Mr. Neville Lawrence when he spoke at an inquiry meeting in Birmingham in November 1998. He said:
"This is a very small place, this world of ours, we have to live together and we now have to say; let us put the past behind us. join hands and go forward".
That, as the report said, should be the spirit in which the future is approached. I have every confidence that it will be and believe firmly that there can be no other way.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I start by saying how delighted I am to follow the noble Lord, Lord Imbert. I have known him for many years and I hold him in great regard. He has tremendous experience which speaks for itself. I know that he is very well respected and loved, I suppose is the word, by the officers of the Metropolitan Police as an extremely compassionate commissioner. I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. I am sure that the whole House will share those sentiments with me. He mentioned his dealings with terrorists and the Balcombe Street terrorists. That reminded me of the chap who asked me

861
the difference between a terrorist and a chief officer. Of course, the answer is that you can negotiate with a terrorist.
I declare an interest as a fully paid-up member of the National Association of Retired Police Officers. I apologise to the Minister for having to leave the House before the end of the debate. I have a speaking engagement in the north of England this evening, but I shall be more than happy for the Minister to write to me on the questions which I pose in my speech.
The findings of Sir William Macpherson in the Lawrence inquiry present a challenge to us all, although they present no short-term fix. Indeed, there is not one. We have made good progress in improving racial attitudes and understanding since the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the Brixton riots in the 1980s.
Society has changed during the intervening period with those in authority being challenged more and more, quite rightly, particularly by the young. Time does not permit a comprehensive review of the 70 recommendations in the Lawrence Report. Therefore, I shall concentrate my comments in my short speech on those particular areas which I consider to be the most important and, in some respects, the most controversial.
Before coming to that, perhaps I may make a general point. The work that we ask the police to do is becoming more and more demanding. I am sure that there is common agreement in this House on that. In addition, we now set operational performance targets which, quite naturally, officers on the streets are pressured into trying to achieve. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, admitted—and I do not use that word pejoratively—to being an accountant. He would agree with me that there is a tendency with performance indicators to treat as important the things that can easily be measured rather than measuring the things that are really important.
The things that are important and difficult to measure, in my judgment, are extremely germane to the Lawrence inquiry: good community relations, quality time spent with victims, the value of foot patrols. The easy-to-measure things, which I describe as perhaps the ingredients of "macho policing" include, for example, the time taken to respond to incidents. Indeed, we had a debate in the House recently about police accidents which was extremely relevant as regards speeding police cars. Other easy-to-measure matters are, for example, crime detection and drug seizures. I do not criticise those areas of policing but simply indicate the points to which we drive officers if we are not careful.
I turn to the specific recommendations of Sir William Macpherson. First, Recommendations 55 to 59 deal with discipline and complaints. As the Minister mentioned, the recent changes came in on 1st April. He mentioned lowering the standard of proof in discipline cases to the civil standard; allowing double jeopardy so that an officer acquitted on a criminal charge can be dealt with under the discipline rules on the same facts; and a fast-track procedure to deal swiftly with the commission of serious offences in order to prevent long suspensions at public expense. Those measures are to be welcomed.
862
May I suggest to the noble Lord the Minister another measure not mentioned in the Lawrence Report? I refer to the abolition of the right to silence in discipline matters on exactly the same basis as for criminal matters, with a suitable caution. I believe that no police officer could justify hiding behind a shield of silence when the service, quite rightly, campaigned for its abolition in criminal cases.
Controversially, Macpherson called for disciplinary action for up to five years after retirement. This was taken by some—the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to it—to mean an attack on officers' pensions. The report did not specifically call for that and I believe that such a stark measure would be wrong. Morale in the police service is absolutely crucial to an efficient and effective force. Officers pay 11 per cent of their salary throughout their service into an unfunded pension scheme.
The Home Secretary has the power, where an officer is imprisoned for a serious criminal offence and consequently brings the force into disrepute, to reduce that officer's pension entitlement. How many times over the past five years have those powers been used? In any event, I believe that it would be wrong to attack an officer's pension in discipline matters. It would simply encourage the police to go for private schemes in order to avoid the risk, and that would be undesirable. I believe that it would be seen as a devastating attack on the police service alone.
Perhaps I may suggest another way of satisfying the clear public disquiet about officers escaping serious discipline matters scot-free by retiring. I read of a case recently involving the US military where an army officer—I forget his rank—was called back to duty within five years of retirement and dealt with under the disciplinary proceedings. Of course, he was dealt with accordingly. That may well be the solution. In serious discipline cases, officers should perhaps be allowed to retire on licence, subject to recall within five years. If that were accepted, there would need to be safeguards. Perhaps such a decision would need to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Home Office. I am certain that it should not be left to the whim of a possibly vindictive chief constable to make the decision. I leave that for the Minister to consider as a possible solution.
Before leaving discipline, perhaps I may comment on the culpability of chief officers themselves. There is at the present time an unprecedented number of chief officers suspended or being investigated. In particular, following a shooting in Sussex, a constable has been charged with murder. I believe that he is only the second serving officer in history to be charged with such a serious offence while on duty. Other officers in Sussex are suspended and charged with the ancient common law offence of misfeasance in public office, and for a while the Chief Constable of Sussex was suspended. However, after giving an unpublicised explanation to his police authority, he was reinstated following "strong written advice" being given to him.

863
The Minister has mentioned that the thread running through the action plan is openness. The importance of openness and freedom of information is absolutely critical in this regard. I ask the Minister why, in these days of freedom of information, the reason for the suspension of that chief constable has to be kept secret when those under his command face the ultimate public censure for their actions. What was the "strong written advice" that the police authority felt necessary to give him? Are the people of Sussex not entitled to know why their chief constable was suspended? We really cannot have one rule for the chiefs and another for the indians.
A similar thing happened in Cleveland Police in the North East. The deputy chief constable, who personally suspended Superintendent Ray Mallon (of zero tolerance fame), suddenly retired two years into a five-year contract amid speculation and rumour. He cannot therefore be held accountable for his actions should they be questioned at some future time. Again, the police authority refused to publicise the details. I found out today that the deputy chief constable concerned has, since he retired, taken up an appointment as Assistant Commissioner in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Such public authorities must be far more open with the ratepayers who pay their allowances and whom they are appointed to represent. Will the Minister take steps to secure more openness in these matters and give us an assurance that Recommendation 9 of Sir William Macpherson's Report, that a freedom of information Act should apply to all areas of policing, will deal with such situations?
I will now deal with Recommendation 38 which has been subject to much criticism both outside and inside the Palace of Westminster. This recommends that consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal to permit a prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented. I again declare an interest. I raised this very point in a speech to the present Home Secretary at his first Superintendents' conference in 1997, and I have to tell your Lordships that, as a lawyer, he was not comfortable with the suggestion.
Let me share with your Lordships my argument for such a proposition. I remember many years ago, probably in the 1960s, reading in a Sunday tabloid about the murder of a man called Stanley Setty. The murderer of Mr. Setty wrote an article, for payment, in a tabloid newspaper. He had previously been tried and acquitted of the murder. He described in graphic detail how he had killed Setty, chopped his body into small pieces and dropped them into the sea from an aircraft. Because of the ancient rule of double jeopardy the authorities could not do a thing about it. The article was an obscenity in my judgment and, to add insult to injury, the criminal actually profited from his criminal act. On top of that, the man went on to murder yet again. He shot a taxi driver in Switzerland and was imprisoned for life.
Is that not a miscarriage of justice? It is no less a miscarriage than those wrongfully convicted, such as the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six, for which the law provides a remedy. In my view, it would happen infrequently. That might be because of advances in forensic science, such as DNA testing. The main
864
criticism of such a proposition is that it would allow the police continually to have bites at the same cherry. Not so. Such a decision to prosecute following a previous acquittal would be authorised only in very special circumstances, perhaps by the authority of the DPP or the Attorney General. Indeed, a retrial can happen now if there is evidence of interference with witnesses. In my judgment, justice demands that that rule be extended to clearly wrongful acquittals.
I am pleased that the Commissioner of Police did not resign. He is an honourable man and has done much to improve ethics and integrity in the police of London. He must continue that work in the time that he has left. The criticism of the Metropolitan Police in the report must be balanced by the positive achievements. Where is the credit for all the excellent anti-terrorist work over three decades? We now have an arch-exponent on the Cross-Benches: the noble Lord, Lord Imbert. Where is the credit for the vast improvements in the policing of sensitive events such as the Notting Hill carnival, and the many major state events that are regularly policed without a hitch?
I, for one, am grateful for the fact that we live in a society that can hold a Lawrence-style inquiry, which calls the police to account and demands better of them. It is an example, in an imperfect world, of the development of genuine democracy and the importance of individual human rights. I still take great pride in the fact that when the Soviet Union broke up in the late 1980s, the emerging democracies of the old Soviet bloc turned in the main to Britain for a model of excellence in policing.
We must continue to strive to do better, but the time to worry is when we do not have inquiries such as Macpherson, and when other countries cease to beat a path to our door.
5.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, first, perhaps I may join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, on his most impressive maiden speech, springing as it did out of a unrivalled fund of knowledge and experience of the policing of London. I am sure that your Lordships look forward to hearing him speak on many other occasions.
Like others, I very much welcome this debate. It is about far more than the terrible death of Stephen Lawrence and all that ensued; about far more than the Metropolitan Police, or policing in general in this country. It is about an issue that affects all of us, because it affects the whole of British society: the cancer of racism. The basic moral question before us is this: are we ready to own up to that cancer, not as someone else's responsibility, but as ours?
I wish that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark were here to speak instead of me because he is the Bishop who is primarily concerned. Unfortunately, he had a previous engagement which he could not break.
While speaking of Bishops, I must also mention the role of Dr. John Sentamu, the Bishop of Stepney, as one of the advisers to Sir William Macpherson. He is well

865
known as one of the Church of England's two black Bishops. But perhaps few of your Lordships know that, as a young judge of integrity in Uganda before he came to England, he was victim of the regime of Idi Amin.
But above all, in speaking of the Church's contribution, the Christian contribution, to the Macpherson inquiry, I must pay tribute to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence as living witnesses to the Christian virtues of perseverance, fortitude, forbearance, hunger for righteousness, and hope. I was moved almost to tears when I read Neville Lawrence's words to the final meeting of the inquiry (paragraph 4.12). He said:
"I have … had quite a few interviews and one of the things which I have said is before people can go ahead and make changes, we have to admit what is wrong. It is no use people blaming each other for what has gone wrong in the past. We have to look forward … This is a very small place, this world of ours, we have to live together and we now have to say: let us put the past behind us, join hands and go forward".
Response to the inquiry has naturally focused on the police. Sir William is right: progress will be possible only if, starting at the top of each police force, there is an unequivocal acceptance of the problem of institutional racism. But we have to recognise the particular problems of large institutions with a deeply ingrained culture. Any one of us who has ever run an organisation of any size knows how little we know at the top about what is really going on at the bottom. We also know the difference between the issuing of orders and the changing of attitudes. There is a whole world between the grudging acceptance of an order from a remote authority, which is assumed to know nothing of life on the ground, and the willing and wholehearted understanding and implementation of a fresh policy.
But we miss the point if we stick with the police. Chapter Six of the report, the chapter on racism, is a chapter for the whole of British society.
I do not exempt the Churches. Let us look, for instance, at the number of Bishops who are present today, and compare it with the number, led by the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, who were present on Tuesday evening. The contrast says something about our institutional priorities. I include myself. If I had not been on duty this week, I think it very likely that some other previously existing obligation would have kept me away. There are lots of understandable and more or less conscientious decisions; but cumulatively, they indicate collective attitudes and priorities. That is what institutional racism is about.
The story has often been told of the arrival in the 1950s and 1960s of people like and including the Lawrences—committed, faithful members of the churches; the story of how they were not welcomed here by their fellow believers, members of the same churches; of how many of them left the mainline churches, and of how those who remained were still frozen out on the fringes.
But it is also a story of people like the Lawrences who persevered and stayed with the Church. I am repeatedly amazed by such people, by the depth of their faith, their prayer and their charity, as well as by their
866
perseverance. In a city like Birmingham, many of our inner-city churches would not exist any more if it were not for the black and Asian Christians who sustain them.
In recent years we have tried in the Churches, and in a more or less blundering way, to own up to the mistakes of the past. In the diocese of Birmingham, out of nearly 200 lay readers, nine are black or Asian; that is, nearly 5 per cent. It is not many; but it is more than 10 years ago. We have many black churchwardens, church council members and lay ministers of Holy Communion. But (and this is serious) among 200 active parochial clergy only three are black or Asian. That is a mere 1.5 per cent. Even with two more who are retired but still active, that illustrates the problem of the so-called "glass ceiling" in the Church as much as in any other institution.
Of the black clergy who are in active parochial service, only one is young and male. Yet when I meet young ministers from majority black churches, I meet young men of ability and zip, and I say to myself, "What is it about the Church of England which means that young people like that evidently feel that it is not a space in which they can breathe, flourish and exercise a professional ministry?"
And then I notice that my diocesan office has not a single black or Asian employee—in Birmingham—except for my professional adviser for black and Asian ministries. We had a black secretary once, but she did not stay. Why? I have inquiries to make, and questions to answer: questions about an institution and about a culture.
That brings us back to the central issue of institutional racism. Reading the report of the debate in another place, it was clear to me that, despite the positive response to Sir William's report from all sides of the House, as there has been in this Chamber today, it was still the case that not all honourable Members understood or accepted what was being said. They understood the term "institutional racism" as labelling each and every member of an institution, in this case the Metropolitan Police, as a racist—as if people could be abstracted from the society or culture in which they live and move.
But there is the rub. None of us exists in a vacuum; none of us exists apart from the culture we inhabit, with its norms, its assumptions, its attitudes and its collective priorities. If we take white English attitudes for granted, whether wittingly or not, we are institutionally racist. This affects the way we think, the way we talk, the attitudes that we know our colleagues will find acceptable and will not complain about, and the priorities we adopt.
To say that is not to label each and every member of an institution as a racist, but neither does it exempt individuals from their responsibility. Taking responsibility is part of being a grown-up human being. Each of us, in proportion to our capacity and our position, has the duty to open our eyes and act on what we see, taking responsibility for our actions and our collusions. If we shut our eyes or turn away from the light, we are morally culpable.

867
I am a Bishop, so let me use a theological analogy. What is required of us all is nothing less than a process of repentance and conversion. Institutional racism is like original sin, a blindness which affects us all, in one way or another. Repentance is a process of letting the eyes be opened, of growing up and of taking responsibility.
That came home to me in a new way last month. On the fifth Sunday in Lent I found myself having to preach on the story of the man born blind, in John, Chapter 9. The story begins with the disciples asking Jesus:
"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Jesus answered:
"It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him".
Then the process of healing begins, the work of God in the opening of the blind man's eyes, which is a kind of metaphor or parable of the process of repentance and conversion—the opening of the eyes, the heart and the mind. But at the end of the story there are those who will not believe what is there before their eyes—the fact that the man born blind can now see. The story ends with Jesus saying:
"It is for judgement that I have come into this world—to give sight to the sightless and to make blind those who see".
Some Pharisees who were present asked:
"Do you mean that we ate blind?".
Jesus said:
"If you were blind, you would not be guilty, but because you claim to see, your guilt remains".
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, my chief reaction to reading the Lawrence Report was dismay and surprise at the sheer incompetence displayed by many of the officers concerned, especially in the early stages of the inquiry. I deeply regret, however, that the racist attitudes displayed by some of the officers throughout the inquiry came as less of a surprise to me.
We pride ourselves in this country that kindness and tolerance are prominent national characteristics, and perhaps it is true that these qualities are widely practised. However, they are accompanied by a singular lack of imagination about the lives of those who are disadvantaged by reason of gender, ethnicity or social class. As the right reverend Prelate said, we live in a racist society. Assumptions are frequently made (and not only in the police service) that behaviour that is acceptable in relationships between groups of equal power—between the English and the Scots, for example—is also acceptable where the relationship is one of inequality of power. Thus, it may be acceptable to tease a Scot about his parsimony, but it is not acceptable to make jokes about the jungle to a black citizen. I have heard as many racist comments in your Lordships' House as I have in police canteens, so it is not something that is unique to the police service.
The importance of unequal distribution of power in relationships, however, is particularly acute in hierarchical organisations such as the police service where some officers have power over other officers. It is also extremely important in a service where officers
868
have power over ordinary citizens. This is especially true if racist attitudes are, as has been suggested, institutionalised in an organisation such as the police service. I had some doubt about this definition initially, but, on the definition given in the Macpherson Report, I accept that institutionalised racism does exist in many of our organisations, including the police service. But it is not just the police service: disproportionate numbers of black children are excluded from our schools and disproportionate numbers of black youths end up in our prisons. Racism is extremely widespread in our society.
The main theme of my speech today is that the recommendations in the Lawrence Report are part of a long continuum of efforts to deal with racism m the police service and that, as the Minister said, there are no simple or quick solutions.
Over the past 30 years I have been involved in many initiatives on this front. My extra year at university in 1970 was granted on condition that I conducted research in the race relations field. In the mid-1970s I was in the Metropolitan Police management services department, where we carried out research aimed at eliminating racist applicants for the police service. For two years all applicants—about 10,000 in all—took a psychological test intended to identify tendencies to fascism. Very few applicants fell outside the mid-zone of a normal population. Jobseekers are, of course, unlikely to express extreme views.
In 1972 the Metropolitan Police appointed community relations officers in all divisions. There was a lively debate at that stage as to whether, by creating specialist officers, other officers would feel absolved from having to do anything on the community or race relations front.
In 1981 the Brixton riots were sparked off by the insensitivity of police methods. The Scarman Report reinforced trends that were already being introduced in police training and which have been developed since.
When I was responsible for police training in the late 1980s there were some excellent training programmes, and some of our instructors went on specialist courses, where they stayed with black and Asian families. This was a salutary experience for them, but, of course, such intensive training is not available to all officers, and many police officers meet black and Asian people only in confrontational situations.
One of the most important recommendations in the Macpherson Report is that the police service should be subject to the Race Relations Act. Because the police service is subject to the Equal Opportunities Act. the Equal Opportunities Commission spent several years as part of a working party in the Metropolitan Police, taking a close interest in the position of women, and made an enormous difference with regard to the entry of women to specialist departments, their promotion and the monitoring of their progress throughout their service. There have been many other initiatives on this front under successive commissioners, such as Sir Kenneth Newman and the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, who has been a friend of mine for many years and whose speech I much enjoyed.

869
During my last year in the police service I took part in the Bristol seminars where the Metropolitan Police's 400 ethnic minority officers (in groups of 100 at a time) had the opportunity to meet in workshops and talk about their experiences. For those few white officers who were there, the descriptions of being a black minority in a predominantly white organisation were deeply shocking. We were presented with vivid accounts of bullying and discrimination. That is why I was not surprised by Macpherson's account of institutional racism in the police service.
There have, however, been one or two encouraging signs in the past eight years. Out of the Bristol seminars the Black Officers Association was born, and it has grown in strength and authority. It was involved in yesterday's conference of senior police officers and police authorities which was addressed by the Home Secretary.
The number of black and Asian officers in the Metropolitan Police has nearly doubled in the past eight years. But that is not nearly enough, and I welcome the Home Secretary's targets for the police service. One problem in our class-structured society is that the police service is still seen as lacking in social status. It therefore has difficulty in recruiting the best young people from all backgrounds.
Great damage was done to the police service by the consequences of the Sheehy Report and the reduction in the starting pay of all police officers. The present Commissioner's very first speech five years ago to his senior officers was on the need to eliminate racism from the force. It is tragic that that message was not heeded with sufficient enthusiasm to prevent the shambles of the Stephen Lawrence investigation. As my noble friend the Minister said, there are still serious problems of recruitment, retention and promotion, as shown in the Home Office report published yesterday.
The report of Sir William Macpherson contains 70 recommendations. I support almost all of them. I am puzzled by one or two that merely repeat what has been settled police policy for many years, such as the definition of a racist incident. I do not support the idea of making racist language in private a criminal offence. I believe that that would be a gross intrusion on people's liberties and would place the police service in an impossible situation. In particular, I support the general recommendations on prevention and education. Racism is not a problem for the police service alone; it is endemic in our society. We are all guilty of using stereotypes about other groups and of not treating people with sensitivity and imagination.
If the death of Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson Report can act as catalysts for the initiatives proposed by the Home Secretary's action plan, we can perhaps look forward not only to a police service but to a society that treats all of its members with respect and humanity.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, rather unusually for me I begin by congratulating the Government. I thought that would attract the Minister's attention! First,
870
I congratulate the Government on their very brave decision to hold the inquiry in the first place. I believe that all of us now agree that that was the right decision, although some may have had doubts at the beginning. Secondly, I congratulate the Government on their response to the recommendations of the inquiry. Although I have some detailed concerns, I acknowledge that it is a prompt, clear and positive response. The Minister rightly described it as an ambitious response. He is also right to say that so it should be. I believe that I speak for my colleagues on these Benches when I say that the Government have our support in seeking to implement those recommendations.
The report is far-reaching. Speaking as a Londoner and a London politician, there are a lot of things I should like to say about the findings of the report and the Metropolitan Police Service, but time does not permit. All I shall say is that I have been impressed by the response of the Metropolitan Police Service to what has been for that service an extremely difficult report. I include in that not just its leadership, important though that is, but the lower ranks where some quite important difficulties must be faced and lessons learnt. If we are ever to achieve policing by consent in London, the Metropolitan Police Service will need and deserve all the support and help that those of us in public office can give, even if occasionally it is the support of a critical friend.
I confine my remarks tonight to my two roles, one outside this Chamber and the other within it. I begin with my responsibilities outside this Chamber. I speak as a London borough councillor for the past 15 years and a leader of a London borough for the past 13 years. As the report makes clear, although it is concerned primarily with the police service, it has many important implications and recommendations for all public organisations, not least local government.
Speaking as a council leader, I found the definition of institutional racism extremely helpful. One of the first things I did having read the report was to say to my chief executive that it applied to the council and we must look at it. I am certain that next week the policy and resources committee will accept that, according to the definition in the report, our council can be said to be institutionally racist. I say straightaway that that does not mean that the members, officers and staff of the council are racists. The right reverend Prelate dealt with that point extremely well, and he is right. Nor does it mean that we have ignored these issues; indeed, the opposite is true. Community safety was a top priority of my authority before the term was even invented. The Government have now deemed it fit to make my council a pathfinder authority in terms of their crime and disorder strategy. We have achieved real reductions in crime and, perhaps more importantly for an outer London borough, even bigger reductions in the fear of crime, which is very much more real than actual crime in my area.
There are those on my council who still say that it is wrong to attach priority to this matter, that it stirs up trouble and that it creates problems that it currently does not have. I could not disagree more strongly with that view. Most likely, it will demonstrate to us that we have

871
problems and perceptions that we did not know we had. I speak of an outer London borough with the lowest ethnic population of all the London boroughs. This is an important issue for us. A Bangladeshi woman on one of our housing states is in a very isolated position and in many ways is invisible. I do not debate whether that is a better or worse problem than that experienced by someone who lives in an area with a higher ethnic population, but it is a very real problem and often one that is not recognised simply because it is invisible.
Therefore, this is an important issue for my authority. I do not say that because I believe the London Borough of Sutton to be in any way unusual, rare or exceptional. I hope very much that it is not and that every local authority in this country is doing exactly as we are: examining how this definition applies to it and, even more importantly, drawing up an action plan to tackle that problem, as we are. That is probably the case—I hope that it is—for those local authorities in areas with high ethnic minority populations, but, if anything, it is even more important in areas like mine with a relatively low ethnic minority population where people perhaps have the perception that everything is all right, there are no problems, and so there is no need to pay any attention to it.
I come to my last word as a local authority leader. I hope that the Government will seriously consider giving local authorities the duty to promote racial harmony. I do not believe that that is in the response of the Government. If it is, I missed it. The Government will have an early opportunity in the coming months when we shall be spending most of our time considering the Greater London Authority Bill. That will be the Government's first opportunity to require such a duty of a local authority.
I turn to my other responsibility as my party's spokesman on education in your Lordships' House and respond to Recommendations 67 to 69, which deal specifically with education matters. I welcome those recommendations and, for the most part, agree with the Government's response to them. Recommendation 67 deals with the national curriculum and, rightly, says that these issues should have a higher priority in it. The Government's response refers, among other things, to the teaching of citizenship and they commit themselves—not for the first time—to that issue having a higher priority in the revised national curriculum. I welcome that and have spoken on that matter before.
It is right that these issues are dealt with in that context, but I do not believe that that is enough. These issues need to be (in the words of the CRE) "threaded" throughout the curriculum, not just in citizenship teaching or any other pocket. I also look forward to hearing how the Teacher Training Agency will respond to the whole issue of training teachers to deal with such issues.
Next, Recommendation 68 deals with racist incidents and exclusion in relation to schools. I welcome the Government's response. They have decided not to accept the recommendation that data on racist incidents should be published on a school-by-school basis. It is absolutely right that such data should be collected and
872
published in a collective form, but not on a school-by-school basis. The latter would almost certainly have been counter-productive and potentially dangerous.
I have a problem with the definition of "racist incident" in the context of schools and school discipline. I understand and wholly share the objective of a clearer and better definition in the context of policing. However, speaking as a school governor, never mind as leader of a local education authority, I worry that a school may be in a situation where any incident can be termed a racist incident because someone believes that it is. The implications for school discipline and for teachers are serious.
I do not have a better or more positive definition to put in its place. However, I urge the Government to recognise the potential difficulty. They have committed themselves to accepting the definition and to its application in this area. I plead with them to work with the Local Government Association, professional bodies, and so on, on clear and sensible procedures. Otherwise our schools, head teachers, governors and indeed the LEA will find themselves in a difficult situation. I say that as someone who wholeheartedly supports the objective but worries about the route chosen to achieve it.
It is well documented that African and Caribbean boys are disproportionately represented among exclusions. The problem of exclusions may be greater than we think. Temporary exclusions are not recorded or included in the figures. If they were, I believe that we would find a worse situation. The Government have a target for reducing exclusions. Will they set targets for reducing exclusions of ethnic minority pupils? My noble friend explained rightly what targets involved. Unless we have those targets, an almost inevitable effect of reducing the number of exclusions is to increase the proportion of ethnic minority pupil exclusions.
The last recommendation—it is the final issue with which I wish to deal—relates to Ofsted inspections of schools, including how well schools are addressing these issues. The Government have supported it They have said that inspectors should be trained to do so. That is right, but is it enough? Are most Ofsted inspection teams equipped to do that job? I believe—I should like to think that the Minister could deny it, but I suspect that he cannot—that the overwhelming majority of Ofsted inspection teams are white and middle class. By definition, are they in a position to be able to judge these issues? Can the Minister tell us later whether we have any knowledge of how many registered Ofsted inspectors would describe themselves as being from ethnic minority groups?
What do the Government propose to do to increase the proportion of registered inspectors from ethnic minority groups? We have described the necessity as regards the police service, the Church and other organisations. If Ofsted is to do the job that we wish, that is just as necessary in regard to school inspections. As part of the inspection, I hope that the team would talk with the ethnic minority pupils of the school and their parents to gain their perceptions of the school in this context.

873
I believe that the Macpherson Report will be seen as a landmark report. It behoves all of us in public office to ensure that it is.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in debate, particularly on this occasion when he expressed much of what I felt about the report in terms which I need not cover and inevitably less prolifically.
The Minister has once again put us greatly in his debt. It leads us to take all the greater pleasure in his elevation to the Privy Council which gave us so much delight when we heard it.
The subject of our debate today is a shameful one. A young and promising life has been cut off criminally and no one has been brought to justice because an important institution of government was blinded by prejudice against a particular part of society for which it was responsible.
Before I deal briefly with the main matter, perhaps I may refer to three peripheral issues which have arisen. The first is the leak to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred. A matter caught my eye in relation to it. A report in the Evening Standard states:
"Such leaks come week in and week out, many of them from members of the Cabinet".
The report noted,
"well-sourced suspicions that the culprit is a junior Home Office Minister.
I complained much in the former Parliament about the leaks from government sources. This is one of the most serious because until its publication the report had such little currency. The passage to which I have just referred mentioned "well-sourced suspicions". The press rightly claims privilege on the basis that the public are entitled to know. But the public cannot know and judge unless they know the source of the information. The press says that it cannot disclose its sources; otherwise it would not obtain the information. I used to hear such an argument when I was campaigning to liberalise the rules of what was then called Crown privilege, now public interest immunity. It was said that, unless the immunity and privilege were maintained, the civil servant would not give honest, open and frank advice. I never believed that, and it has been disproved ever since your Lordships' House gave the important decision in Conway and Rimmer. It is no more true in the case of the press. If such an authoritative source is to be quoted, it should be openly canvassed.
The second peripheral matter is that the names of informants were disclosed erroneously in the appendix to the report. Sir William Macpherson took responsibility for that, although a great many others ought to have spotted what had gone wrong. I referred to that because in some quarters it was alleged that that was the kind of mistake which Sir William was criticising in his report on the part of the police. But the two are not at all comparable. The criticism he made so cogently and, I believe your Lordships have accepted, so convincingly of the police was of quite another order.
874
The third peripheral matter is the recent television broadcast. Again, I saw a newspaper reference:
"TV charade that backfired".
It concluded:
"Any lingering doubt about who killed Stephen Lawrence will have been dissipated by this last ghastly performance".
It seems that if that broadcast gave the police some extra lines of inquiry after the kind of comments to which I have referred and all the other publicity, it will be virtually impossible to vouchsafe a fair trial. Once again, I venture to protest against trial by television.
Turning to the report, institutional racism has already been described by a number of your Lordships and, as has been convincingly emphasised, it is not confined to the police. Your Lordships will remember that when the late Mr. Enoch Powell made a speech which was considered to be inflammatory from a racial point of view, in which he referred to the rivers foaming with blood, the dockers in the East End of London marched in demonstration in his support. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, are not in their places, because I am sure that they will confirm that in large areas in the Midlands there is virulent racism which is endemic.
I do not suggest for a moment that this is a class matter. A few years ago at an Eton and Harrow cricket match at Lords, the Harrow captain, who was of Jewish origin, was subjected to anti-Semitic taunts from the boundary. One can also think of the Foreign Office minutes during the war. The truth is that, as has been said, institutional racism extends throughout society.
That is not to say that this country is especially guilty. On the contrary, one can think of the National Front in France, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's use of anti-Semitism against Trotsky and the other people put on show trials and so on. Nor are only the white races concerned. In India, there exists the caste system. At its worst, a high caste is contaminated if the shadow of an out caste falls in his path. In China, the people in the west were considered as barbarians. The Ugandan persecution has already been mentioned today.
Although this country is nothing like the worst, there is sufficient to put us very much on our guard. It is highly undesirable that society should be fragmented and that any part of it should feel alienated or persecuted.
I certainly shall not go through the whole of this masterly report. I shall mention only three specific recommendations. I admire the Government's response. The first specific matter relates to racial conduct of private premises. The Home Office has rightly been very cautious about that and I hope that nothing will be done to implement the suggestion. The Government were rather chary when we referred to privacy in the Human Rights Bill, so I am glad to see they are showing caution as regards Recommendation No. 39.
As regards Recommendation No. 40, I am glad to see that the Government have accepted the recommendation that private prosecution should continue. I have been on record many times about that and I will not trouble your Lordships with further argument.

875
The final matter is prosecution again after acquittal. The Government have rightly been reserved about that. They have said that they would consider it and have italicised the word "consider". It can safely be left to the Law Commission. It would be wholly undesirable to accept that recommendation. Society benefits by litigation rather than violence, but that is not to say that prolonged litigation is itself desirable. On the contrary,Jarndyce v. Jarndyce represents something real and Miss Flite, her wits overturned by the strain of litigation, does, too.
It is a rule of the civil law and adopted wholesale by our common law that it is in the interests of the commonwealth that there should be an end to litigation. In the civil sphere, as early as 1623, we had the Statute of Limitations. A great American judge described that as an "Act of oblivion"; a great English judge described it as an "Act of mercy".
The criminal law is rather different, although in its early stages it did show signs of discouraging prolonged disputes in society. En the early criminal law many societies relied on the vendetta for policing. Gradually, as central authority became more powerful, the number who could visit vengeance was limited, and the degree of vengeance that could be visited was limited. Then the whole function of policing was taken over by the state, but we did not, unfortunately, set any limit to the time at which activity could be taken.
Amnesty International was started by Peter Benenson from my chambers. We should remember its title: amnesty is to be greatly valued. However tragic the drama, in the end the curtain should descend on it. However complicated the account, a line must be drawn. Here, too, let the dead bury their dead.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have always listened to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, with care. He speaks with passion and clearly revulsion about bigotry, racism and hatred, all of which beget further bigotry, hatred and racism. We see it everywhere in the world today. It is not confined to, or even practised to the maximum in, our own country, but we should observe the warning signs. It is not confined to any single group of people, white or black, Jew or Gentile. It is especially important that we take note of it when people in whom others place great trust and confidence, or seek to, betray that trust and confidence. It is in that respect that the lessons of this report are so important.
We have heard powerful contributions from people who served in the police force with great distinction. The maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, will remain in our memories for a long time. He speaks from remarkable experience. During the period that he was Police Commissioner for the Metropolis he did one thing that was tremendously important, and that was to reach out to people and listen to what they had to say. He showed that he was prepared to listen and was not unprepared to take flak from time to time. The message that he preached was of great importance in areas where those I once represented lived, in Hackney in east London.
876
My noble friend Lady Hilton speaks with enormous experience as one of the most senior women police officers. I have listened to her twice this week arid I have found her speeches utterly compelling arid convincing—but I started on the basis that I agreed with her!
This has been a sad chronicle of events and has been fully recorded in a masterly way, as the noble arid learned Lord, Lord Simon, said. Some people have emerged with great credit. The positive result is that the report has produced a series of recommendations on which the Government have acted very promptly indeed, and carefully, as explained by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn.
We must not forget that the Lawrence family have emerged with enormous distinction and dignity out of this terrible tragedy which has befallen them: the death of their extremely talented son, who had so much to look forward to. We will always remember the words of Mr. Neville Lawrence that have been quoted today.
They are a family who have been denied justice and fairness for too long. To add insult to injury, it is deeply sad that one of the most senior police officers, Deputy Commissioner Osland, should have advised police officers to sue the Lawrences for accusing them of racism. How far does insensitivity have to go?
Some very senior police officers treated that family with disdain, patronised them and were insensitive towards them. There was a great deal of preconceived stereotyping. Yet they have emerged with great dignity and have fought courageously to break down obstacles in their path in seeking the equity, fairness and justice that I have spoken of.
There were two bungled reviews, the internal review and the Kent review. The Lawrences would not have been human if they had not believed that those were deliberate obstacles placed in their way. It is not surprising, therefore, that they felt that racism was a key issue which had been missed.
I pay tribute to Sir William Macpherson and his team for the diligence and scrupulous manner in which they undertook this inquiry and for the way in which they have framed their recommendations. I do not agree with a number of the recommendations touched on by my noble friend Lady Hilton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I worry more than a little about making fundamental changes in the law, but we await the examination of the issues by the Law Commission.
It would be wrong not to pay tribute, too, to the notable courage of my right honourable friend Jack Straw for his approach. He set up the inquiry. He has responded positively to the recommendations. He has acted in a way which should have been pursued by his predecessor much earlier.
Finally in this context, I underline what has been said in the report—something which has not been mentioned today—about a number of police officers who did their service and the community proud, who emerged with great credit, in contrast to those who have been severely criticised. I refer specifically to former Detective Superintendent Mellish, who was the nephew of Lord Mellish, a former friend and colleague in another

877
place as well as in this House. I think Lord Mellish, if he had lived, would have been very proud of his nephew. The report stated that he did all that he could during his time as a senior investigating officer, and he was thanked by Michael Mansfield, QC, who represented the Lawrences, for the way in which he had conducted the investigation over which he presided.
Commander Perry Nove had been involved in the investigation of the terrible killing of Police Constable Blakelock. The report says that it was entirely to his credit, with Assistant Commissioner Johnston, that he was able to do so much to salvage the situation which confronted him in May 1994. It is right that one should pay tribute to those and many other police officers who are not marked by the stain of institutional racism and who try very hard to rebuke those in the police force who are so blemished.
I look at the way in which young Duwayne Brooks was treated. He was the best friend of Stephen Lawrence and had actually witnessed the whole miserable tragedy. He was, not unnaturally, deeply moved by what he saw. He perhaps was not wholly in command of his faculties at that time—who would be? He formed the view that he was treated more as a potential prisoner than somebody who had actually witnessed such a terrible crime.
I do not intend to go into the misdemeanours and aberrations of the police officers. I do not believe that they should ever have been in, or remained in, the police force because of what they have stood for.
I have been a practising solicitor now for rather a long time, since 1953. I practised in the criminal courts—with one or two long exceptions when I was in government or the European Commission—and I also practised in the magistrates' courts for rather a long time. When I was a young man in practice I was deeply upset when I went into the police room at the back of the court and heard some of the racist abuse. It upset me much more than hearing that racist abuse—which, when they got to know who I was, tended to be stilled when I came into the room—that I never heard a single word of rebuke from another police officer. Perhaps they were afraid—I do not know. The police force today must undertake to rebuke those who abuse their position. They must not be afraid to stand up and be counted.
Of course it is true that it is not only the overt expression of racism that is heard and observed; it is much more the unconscious; it is much more the kind of thing that a number of your Lordships have adverted to, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. When I was a young boy, being Jewish I suffered from racism. I grew up in the days when Mosley was beginning to thrive in that part of London from which I was not very far removed. Children in school repeat what is said in their homes and racist comments are picked up from there. What kind of atmosphere were these five young men brought up in? I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that they should not have been dealt with on the television the other day. It did not do the possible case against some of them any good at all. They were brought up in an
878
atmosphere of thuggery and crookery, and clearly racism. That is what they have brought to the society of which they form part.
The noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Dholakia, emphasised with great force the importance of education. Education is critical—not just the education and training of the police but going into schools and making sure that part and parcel of the understanding that we have to communicate is that we are living in a diverse culture, that people do make different and often very positive contributions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred to 1968 and Mr. Enoch Powell's prophesies about rivers of blood, which happily have been confounded in the main by what has actually happened in society. There is no doubt that in those days—I saw it in my own constituency—fear masked the faces of so many people from the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent and so on because of what they heard. It was something they associated with the days of Adolf Hitler. They heard it in the streets of east London from the Mosleyites still, and there is no question that the meat porters and the dockers behaved outrageously in support of Mr. Powell at that time. If black people felt, as Jewish people did before them, that these forces were against them and were intolerable, and sometimes they railed against society in consequence, it is not altogether surprising.
None of us can afford to be bystanders like the police officers who failed to react to racist comments in those backrooms of magistrates' courts. They were bystanders. By being a bystander and never offering a rebuke to something that is said that is so deeply offensive, or even drawing attention to something which is not necessarily meant to be offensive but is, we are doing society no service whatsoever.
I shall not go into the recommendations in detail—I have spoken for long enough—but I welcome most of them. It is right of course that there always has to be a balance. The old "sus" laws were hopelessly abused and, for the most part, black people suffered from that. The present laws of stopping and searching must be carefully monitored because again they give rise to a disproportionate number of black people—vulnerable young black people in particular—being stopped. There is so much more that is good that comes out of the report. I hope that we will not allow it to slither into the sands of time but that we shall remember what was said, certainly by Mr. Neville Lawrence. We must also remember the more negative aspects because that is part and parcel of it too. Mrs. Lawrence has been mortally offended and deeply hurt by what has happened. At paragraph 4.4 she says:
"Basically, we were seen as gullible simpletons. This is best shown by Detective Chief Superintendent Ilsley's comment that I had obviously been primed to ask questions. Presumably, there is no possibility of me being an intelligent, black woman with thoughts of her own who is able to ask questions for herself. We were patronised and we were fobbed off'.
And it is not always a question of race either. Women have been patronised and fobbed off. Too many people in our society have been patronised and fobbed off. That is the message that Doreen Lawrence has imparted. Just as her husband's message is so clear and vivid, it should never be forgotten.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Warwick: My Lords, my father was born in Jamaica in the West Indies. After serving in the British Army in the Second World War he was proud to sign for Warwickshire as a county cricketer. Life was good: he was scoring runs; he was taking wickets; he was a star in the making. Then came tragedy. After just two seasons he had a serious arm injury; his career was over. No longer a star, for the first time he had to experience the reality of life as a black person in 1950s Britain.
I remember him telling me, with some emotion, that although he was a qualified accountant, the only work he could get was sweeping a floor in a factory. No longer able to stay in one of the houses provided by the county cricket club, he had to face landlords openly displaying signs in their window saying, "No Blacks". My father could have become very bitter and angry but he refused to give up. Maybe he was an exceptional person. He studied and trained to be a cricket coach. Eventually, Warwickshire decided to give him a temporary contract. It lasted 32 years. Ironically, he went on to discover many players who went on to play cricket for England.
The reason why I tell that story is that he tried at any rate to instil in me, as a young black boy growing up in Birmingham, a certain philosophy. He warned me that there would be times in my life, due to the colour of my skin, when I would feel that life was totally unfair. He said, "Don't give up when that happens. Look for solutions, not just problems". That is why, in the main, I welcome the Macpherson Report.
That is an attitude I tried to keep firmly in mind during my eventful time as a parliamentary candidate in Cheltenham during the 1992 general election. In Britain, I believe we have come a long way since the racial tensions in the 1950s and the inner-city riots of the early 1980s. I was one of the barristers involved in the Handsworth not trials. I have to say that at that time, the future seemed bleak as far as race relations were concerned. But now, in the 1990s, many of Britain's heroes are black, especially in the realms of sport and show business. There are a number of Asians on the so-called "Rich List". However, it must also be said that these high profile successes have tended to mask the unfortunate experience of many black and Asian people in this country.
It is a disgrace, quite frankly, that it has taken the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence and then 69 days of public hearings, 88 witnesses and over 100,000 pages of documentary evidence to expose what black and Asian people in this country already knew. The Macpherson Report speaks of institutionalised racism in Britain. That finding may have come as a shock to middle England but it came as no shock to the ethnic minority communities in this country.
It is clear that, through a combination of incompetence and racism by certain officers, the Metropolitan Police failed Doreen and Neville Lawrence. The brutal killers of their son are still at large. The Macpherson Report clearly will not bring Stephen back, but it might prove to be the most significant milestone in race relations in this country since the Scarman Report.
880
In my view, the report's most important message is that there is a need to restore confidence in the police among all—I stress all—sections of the community. The police, as an organisation, look insular and outdated in today's multi-racial, multi-cultural society.
I welcome the formation of a steering group to oversee and monitor the progress of police reforms. I understand that the Home Secretary has pledged to chair it himself. I believe that an annual report and a debate in Parliament is certainly a way of evaluating the progress of such reforms. We await the effectiveness of the new police discipline arrangements. Clearly, what is required is more transparency and faster procedures for dealing with guilty officers. I hope also that the establishment of the metropolitan police authority will improve accountability because here accountability is a key word.
The system whereby complaints against the police are investigated by the police clearly is no longer acceptable. Yes, I support also effective race equality training and targets—not quotas—for recruiting ethnic minority officers. There is no intrinsic reason why a black or Asian person cannot aspire to be and become a top-rate officer, indeed, a chief constable. There are black and Asian police officers all over the world. My own grandfather was the Chief of Police in Jamaica.
This Government will fail in their plans to increase the number of ethnic minority officers if they do not follow up this drive with more effort to retain those officers. If black and Asian officers are denied equal opportunities for promotion and continue to be victims of the police canteen culture of racial taunts and abuse. they will leave, and who can blame theme' That would cause further damage to the image of the police at a time when they are being scrutinised more closely than at any time in their history.
Extending the Race Relations Act to cover the police and all public services is right and long overdue. However, I say to the Government that at ground level more community police officers are required. A good rapport with the local community cannot be achieved by a police force which primarily patrols in cars or waits to respond to 999 police calls.
There needs also to be an improvement in police-family liaison skills. The report criticises the insensitive ways in which certain officers dealt with the Lawrence family. In a sense, that is nothing to do with racism but to do with pure, good manners to a grieving family.
It is also clear that the police have used their stop-and-search powers disproportionately against the ethnic minority community. However, as with the recording of racist attacks, the stop-and-search figures need more research and clarification. There seems to be some confusion here. The recording of a person's ethnicity varies around the country from police force to police force.
One weekend recently I returned home having spoken at a conference. It was about 8 p.m. and dark. I decided to take some exercise. I put on my track suit and went for a jog. After about 15 minutes, I heard a car coming up from behind me. It was a police car. A uniformed

881
officer called out to me to stop. This was a new experience for me. The officer said that he had had a report of a dark man wearing a track suit running from a nearby house. I turned around. I gave him my name and explained that my home was just around the corner.
The reaction of that officer was quite telling. He was embarrassed, spluttered apologies and started to back away from me. I stopped him and said, "Officer, no. As long as you are acting with integrity and within the rules, I support what you are doing". As a black person, I emphasise that point. As long as they act with integrity and within the rules they will be able to protect us all.
The other major finding to emerge from the Macpherson Report is the conclusion that racism exists in other institutions, not only the police force. The report obviously could not do justice to these other areas but it at least signalled the need for further in-depth research; for example, into our education system, the armed services, the National Health Service, the Civil Service and the media.
Dealing with the wider ramifications of the report, I wish to emphasise one particular area in terms of institutionalised racism; that is, corporate Britain. I believe it is relevant to mention that in the context of this debate. The Macpherson Report has required Britain to look at itself in terms of race. Britain is not only composed of the public sector. The spotlight should also be shone on the private sector. The issue was raised recently by none other than Sir John Browne, chief executive of BP Amoco. He listed diversity as one of the biggest challenges facing his company. He said that talent must be drawn from all sections of society to access the widest, most creative range of new ideas—an essential part of competitive advantage, especially in a global market place.
In Britain alone it may not be widely appreciated that the ethnic minorities now have an annual spending power of £14.9 billion. I have the privilege of being president of an organisation which represents Britain's fastest-growing business sector. It is not Asian, but Afro-Caribbean. The irony is that, faced with racism as employees, many of these black Britons went off and started their own companies. So in many ways the firms they left have been the real losers.
In my work also with the Warwick Leadership Foundation—a charity dedicated to promoting leadership—I am finding that many British companies still do not understand that diversity is not just about equal opportunities; it is about making the whole organisation, whether it is in the public sector or the private sector, stronger and more innovative.
There are elements of the Macpherson Report which I find less compelling, such as the observations about the double jeopardy rule and racist comments in the home. But the report's main recommendations have given us a real chance to be more honest and more positive about race relations in Britain. It is time to recognise diversity as a strength, not a weakness. In practical terms we need to build bridges between our communities, not walls.
6.31 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I begin by adding my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Imbert on his maiden speech. I know that he is still remembered with very great respect and affection throughout the Thames Valley and his former colleagues there will enjoy reading his speech as much as the House, I know, enjoyed hearing it.
When I joined the Metropolitan Police in 1980 I was posted, after initial training, to serve as a constable in the London Borough of Lambeth. Less than four months later I saw for myself the ultimate consequences of allowing confidence in the police among one section of the community to be so seriously undermined that there existed in its place only an indignant and resentful atmosphere of mutual suspicion. The subsequent inquiry into those events by my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman referred to the "determination and persistence" which would need to be shown by the police if they were to gain the,
"approval of all responsible elements in our ethnically diverse society".
While I feel that some commentators may have been a little grudging in their acknowledgement of the progress which has been made—for example, in the arrangements for public consultation with the police or the introduction of lay visitors to police stations—it must nevertheless be a matter for profound regret that 18 years later many of the findings of the current inquiry replicate those of its predecessor and that they do so in so bleak a context. I do, however, believe that police officers overwhelmingly recognise the gravity of the issues raised and even a superficial reading of the report would disabuse the most complacent of the notion that all is wholly well.
In my current role as a superintendent in the Thames Valley Police I have command responsibility for an area which includes the borough of Slough, about 30 per cent. of whose residents are members of ethnic minority communities. In my area and throughout the force we, together with key community partners, are reviewing our ways of working against the recommendations of the report and are confronting, sometimes uncomfortably but with a positive commitment to action, our own shortcomings. These may be of a personal or institutional nature and the prescription for change will therefore vary, but we expect to be held to account for what we now do, and indeed the Home Secretary's action plan has set out in detail some, though not all, of the ways in which that will happen.
But for all that this collective endeavour is necessary in order that policing operates fairly and without discrimination, and the capacity for improvement is self-evident, we do have something on which to build. It is possible to reflect on the recommendations of the inquiry and then to note many examples, throughout the country, of people striving honourably to make those aspirations a reality.
In our community, Slough Against Racial Attacks is a multi-agency panel very much of the Macpherson model. It consists of police, the race equality council, housing, social services, youth and community, Victim

883
Support and others working in a multi-disciplinary fashion. This allows racist incidents to be reported to any of the parties, thereby encouraging maximum recording and enabling all agencies to monitor the progress of an individual case. Such comprehensive collection and systematic analysis are essential for effective intervention and prevention, as indeed is the opportunity for practitioners to support and learn from each other.
Last year the panel also delivered training to 200 of my officers, a process which not only helped to challenge any racial and cultural stereotypes which may have existed, but also made clear that equity in policing is not, paradoxically, always achieved by treating people in the same way. The panel has also prepared an education pack to raise awareness of racism, bullying and discrimination in schools. This seems particularly relevant in the light of the research referred to during the inquiry in which half of all racist incidents considered by one race equality council were committed by people under 16 and, of those, one-quarter involved children between the ages of six and 10.
Together with our local authority we also established in 1998 a project through which, to date, 20 young people have received training in conflict resolution techniques and have used these in schools, colleges and on the street to reduce a significant level of inter-racial tension which had developed in the town. The project was indeed a joint winner of this year's Philip Lawrence award.
We are also in the second year of an initiative with Thames Valley university to increase recruitment to the police service from minority ethnic groups. This involves challenging our procedures and practices to check that at no stage do they discriminate inadvertently against the very people whom the service is seeking to attract, and also seeks to identify other obstacles to recruitment and retention. In November 1998 our area also signed up to the Leadership Challenge, a national campaign by the Commission for Racial Equality to encourage employers to take a lead in promoting the principles of racial equality through practical action in the workplace.
I give those examples not in a spirit of defensiveness, but simply to assert that at least some of the infrastructure which will be required to bring about these desired changes is indeed already in development or in place. I believe that there are two other key determinants of success—the internal culture and values of the Police Service. and the corresponding external environment.
We, I believe, must work hard to ensure that the internal culture and values of our organisation are ones in which these sometimes difficult issues can be discussed without fear of reprisal and in an atmosphere where measured criticism is not thought to be disloyal. At the same time, those outside the service can support this endeavour, for the morale, commitment and effectiveness of all police officers will be undermined if they themselves are unfairly subjected to a version of the stereotyping which this report so properly deplores.
884
This, I believe, is important, for the compassion, commitment to public service and, on occasions, valour of so many of my colleagues should not, even in the context of this often troubling report, be forgotten.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it may seem an odd thing to say when dealing with this genuinely awful subject, but I believe that some praise is in order: first, to the Home Secretary, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis mentioned a short while ago, for having the courage to set up the judicial inquiry—an announcement made, it should not be forgotten, within three months of his coming into office and in the face of previous refusals to do so. Secondly, praise is due to Sir William Macpherson and his advisers for the report that they have produced. Some have criticised the language of the report; but I do not. It is direct, forceful and clear, leaving no room for ambiguity, with no attempt made to avoid difficult and awkward findings. I believe that the linguistic criticisms are petty and completely beside the point.
Thirdly, and obviously most importantly, as so many other speakers have already said, praise is clue to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence for their courage and persistence in pursuing this matter so that the lessons for the future of all of us can be learnt. They have done so even though they have had to relive time and time again the recounting of the story of the murder of their son.
The Lawrence case and the report have brought on to centre stage so that everyone has heard of it not just the issue of police attitudes and culture towards racist crimes but also the whole issue of racism and, again, culture in our country. As was said in a notable speech in the other place:
"The police merely reflect the society from which they recruit".
That seems to me to be plainly true.
I have practised law for many years in Leicester, a city with a high proportion of ethnic minority citizens. It is a city where, in 1981—we have already heard reference to that year—there were disturbances, perhaps in some ways copycat disturbances, following the Brixton riots. Indeed, it is a city where I have prosecuted and particularly defended in many cases with a racist element. It is a city where second and third-generation British citizens, often of Asian origin, are now growing up whose cultural identities and attitudes are far different in many ways from those of their parents and almost unrecognisable in some ways from those of their grandparents. I am happy to say that it is also a city where the police force—the Leicestershire Constabulary—seems to me at least to have made a special effort over the years to deal with some of the problems of racism. Yet, even in Leicester, there is so much further to go.
The Government are to be congratulated on the action that they have already taken. The setting up of target figures for ethnic minority recruitment—in Leicestershire's case, an extra 104 within the next 10 years— is to be applauded. The emphasis placed not just on recruitment but particularly on retention and promotion is very important. I support it unreservedly.

885
However, it is individual attitudes that matter just as much as institutional attitudes. It is the everyday, matter-of-fact secret, almost hidden, racism—the culture of racism—that must be faced. I believe, perhaps over-optimistically, that it is to some extent being faced in society. Attitudes are changing for the better. One cannot be at school with someone for many years; one cannot work alongside someone for many years; and, indeed, one cannot live close to someone for many years without it having, in my view, some sort of beneficial effect. For example, young people in a city like Leicester, take it for granted that they will have friends of different races. Indeed, it is hardly worth mentioning as far as they are concerned because it is so natural.
Perhaps I may strike a personal note for a moment. My son plays football for a Sikh football club called Khalsa FC every Saturday in the local football league. The important point that I am making is that there is nothing unusual about that; indeed, there is nothing special about it, and my son will probably be annoyed that I even bothered to mention it. So there is progress, but the reality, whether in the police or in society, is that there is a very long way to go.
Perhaps I may turn to one of the report's recommendations and make what may be a controversial point but one which is not meant to be provocative. I have in mind Recommendation 39, which has already been mentioned by many noble Lords. It recommends that consideration should be given to amending the law to allow prosecutions for offences involving racist language or behaviour in private. My view is the conventional one on this; namely, that we must tread very cautiously and that it is almost certainly wrong for the criminal law to intrude into people's homes and private lives in that way.
However, I have to say to your Lordships that some of those who most obviously attack the possibility of introducing any such law against private racist language or behaviour are precisely the people who support the existing law as it affects private consensual homosexual behaviour between 16 and 18 year-olds. I believe that to be a point worth making. Of the two moralities, which is the more serious? Is it the attitude of mind that allows parents to talk in front of children in racist terms or is it consensual homosexual activity between 16 and 18 year-olds? I think that there is room for consistency here.
I sincerely believe that more and more people understand that we are living in a multi-racial society and, more than that, that we are lucky to be doing so. The diversity and opportunities that that brings are wonderful and life-enhancing. I last lived in London some 25 years ago. The difference and improvement in London as a thriving city is just obvious to me because of its multi-racial status.
I believe that the twin evils of this century have been nationalism and racism. I say "twin" because these two evils have hunted together. Indeed, we can see on the Continent of Europe at this very time those twin evils and the effect that they can have. Racism is not just evil; it is also absurd. The notion that I am better than you
886
because my skin is a different colour from yours is patently ridiculous. Yet it was that evil absurdity that led directly to the brutal murder of an 18 year-old boy with his whole life ahead of him in the streets of this city of London in this decade, the 1990s—a murder, as so many noble Lords have said, compounded by the dreadful fact that no one has yet been brought to justice for it.
I end, I hope justifiably, by quoting what I consider to be a most moving speech. It was made by the local Member of Parliament in another place during the debate on the Macpherson Report. Mr. Efford, the Eltham MP, said the following at the conclusion of his speech. It is how I would like to end mine because it seems to me to be extremely accurate and well said:
"At the time of his murder, Stephen had a split second in which he could have chosen to run. He was an excellent athlete, as well as an excellent student, and it is possible that he would have outrun his attackers, but he did not run. The fact that to run was not Stephen's first instinct is a powerful statement to us all. He had done nothing wrong. He had been brought up to understand the difference between right and wrong. A few moments in the company of his parents would enable anyone to understand why that is the case.
Stephen could not have known that what would happen to him in the next few moments would be fatal, but he knew that he had right on his side, and he did not run. He saw nothing from which he should run, and for that he suffered an enormous injustice that his parents have continued to experience in their campaign. It is up to us now to demonstrate the leadership that will prove right the instinct that Stephen had on that road in April 1993".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/99: col. 781.]
6.49 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, in all our debates we hope to see more people entering the Chamber but when I think of the packed Benches on Tuesday I feel disappointed at the attendance today because we all owe the Lawrence family a debt for the opportunity of this debate. This appalling crime and the sacrifice of one young man have enabled a whole society to re-examine itself and find its institutions, as well as its individuals, sick and in need of healing, as the right reverend Prelate has already said. We must not be surprised by this because as a nation we are still timid and defensive about race. Despite our imperial past and our support for humanitarian missions to other countries we are—especially the English, the majority race—afraid to welcome and embrace other cultures and minorities too warmly. We have to acknowledge this. It is, I regret, a fear which we all have in us and which cannot be neatly ascribed to small groups of clearly identified racist hoodlums.
I happened to work in Brixton in the 1970s and early 1980s and vividly remember the resentment and violence which led to Scarman. I see Lawrence as another necessary stage or watershed in terms of the divisions in our society. We have to have these periodic seismic moments in our social and political life if we are to shake ourselves and our ruling elites into a new era of understanding.
The Macpherson Report revives the term "institutional racism" but it was first used by Stokely Carmichael in the United States in the 1960s. It was

887
also referred to by Scarman in 1981 who did not exactly dismiss it but said, perhaps too obscurely, that it was,
"an allegation which deserves serious consideration and, where proved, swift remedy".
It never got it. We are now 18 years further on and we have moved on, but relatively little has changed. Over 100,000 pages have been devoted to evidence on Lawrence, and probably as many more have appeared in the media, so perhaps one fat report condensed into 340 pages is not as heavy as it looks, even without appendices.
It was refreshing to hear of practical actions in the Thames Valley and elsewhere, but are all these words and recommendations just repeated lip service to a new orthodoxy, or will they genuinely transform the climate of disbelief (as it is called) in our institutions—the entrenched conservatism of the Civil Service, the police and other Home Office bodies and of our centres of education, learning and religion? I have read through the action plan and I believe this will occur in time, and that this Government have a real chance to influence attitudes, recruitment and training. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, making people change is the difficult task.
I was one of many who were relieved that the Metropolitan Commissioner, in spite of criticism, was allowed to pursue what he had already clearly identified as the central problem. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said about "targets not quotas", provided that that does not become an excuse for inaction. I still hear the chilling words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, when she said that many police officers only meet those of other races in situations of confrontation.
If we are to forge a genuinely more equal society we have to go much further back—as Macpherson recognises—to the institutions which mould our earlier years and our "cowboys and Indians" mentality which can so quickly turn into prejudice. I will not refer to the general issues of education which were well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with regard to racism in schools and exclusions. However, I refer only to Recommendation 67 in the report which states,
"That consideration be given to amendment of the National Curriculum aimed at valuing cultural diversity and preventing racism, in order better to reflect the needs of a diverse society".
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, it is a weak recommendation bolted on to the important Home Office ones, but at least it is there in the report. I have also read in the action plan the promise from the DfEE that it will,
"develop a statement of values and aims … which will reflect the curriculum's role in developing pupils' knowledge and understanding of different beliefs and cultures, including an appreciation of diversity".
This comprises more words and reassurances, but not a lot of commitment. What about the,
"set of principles … incorporated into the agreed syllabuses of local education authorities",
recommended by the Runnymede Trust in its 1997 report on "Islamophobia"? Has the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority really taken on board the case for citizenship education made by the Crick Report? We
888
have yet to learn all that when the Secretary of State for Education announces his proposals for the national curriculum in England in a few weeks' time.
Three years ago I introduced a debate in this House on awareness of international development issues, including racism. I drew attention to the work of aid agencies and other organisations in schools, churches and colleges. There is an army of teachers, aid workers, clergy and volunteers, including many refugees and others with direct experience of other cultures, engaged in what is called development education. However, they need more encouragement and more resources to do their work properly. They are well placed to help children to confront the issues of race and nationality in ways which are not possible in daily television programmes about, say, genocide or ethnic cleansing, many of which distort the true picture.
I quote Douglas Bourn, the director of the Development Education Association (DEA), one of the specialist bodies in this field, who said:
"Combating racism is a global phenomenon, as we see from events in Kosovo and Rwanda. Promoting cultural diversity should be an integral part of school education, reflected in such subjects as English and the sciences as well as History and Geography. And there is considerable evidence that it is from the ages of 4 to 7 that children's views about the world around them are formed"
We are talking here of ourselves and our families, not just of a few misguided youths and unconvicted alleged criminals whose names happen to be in this report. We are talking of all of us, of all cultures. This is a fundamental question which should not be a party issue, any more than our debate on the age of consent should have been a party issue.
This report sets out a common programme. I hope that the Conservative Party has listened, or will listen., to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who spoke movingly just now, in spite of the lack of colleagues on his Back Benches. It was refreshing to hear also from Virginia Bottomley in the debate in another place on 29th March. She has much experience of race relations. She said that she would like to hear more Afro-Caribbean music at party conferences. That is important, but there are many other ways of including all our nationalities in the centre of our United Kingdom culture which I certainly cannot: list now, but we all have our preferences. I personally warm to the inclusion of "Fidelio" among recommended freedom songs and music in the latest DEA human rights handbook for teachers.
I simply end by asking the Minister whether he will seriously undertake to consult his DfEE colleagues, including the noble Baroness on his own Bench, on Recommendation 67 to see whether it can be given more status, more priority and more flesh on the bone to ensure that global awareness and not just citizenship has a prominent and permanent place in our national curriculum and thus, in the end, in our national life.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this debate has rightly in the main concentrated on the policing aspects of the Macpherson Report. Some powerful and moving speeches have been made. However, in the light of some

889
of the conclusions of the Macpherson Report, I want briefly to consider its implications for other public services and in particular for the NHS.
It is worth reminding ourselves that Sir William Macpherson concluded in broad terms as follows:
"It is incumbent upon every institution to examine their policies and the outcomes of their policies and practices, to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities".
I believe that that is as true of the NHS as it is of our policing services.
A recent article in the British Medical Journal of March pointed out that there is considerable evidence in recent times of the NHS of poorer access to, and use of services by, ethnic minority patients and considerable differences in treatment experienced, especially in terms of waiting times and satisfaction with the outcome of consultation and treatment.
A study published also in the BMJ last October by Professor McManus demonstrated conclusively the discrimination at work in admissions to medical schools. It was highly significant that Christine Watson, the president of the Royal College of Nursing, made the point in her recent speech to the Royal College conference that,
"racism in the NHS still exists".
She and the RCN are only too well aware of reports in the past—for example, that of the Policy Studies Institute in 1995—which demonstrated clearly that the grading and promotion prospects of black nurses and midwives compare unfavourably with those of their white colleagues. That is despite formal equal opportunities policies being in place in most hospital trusts.
There is particular unfairness caused by the fact that many black nurses are former state enrolled nurses who have been left to languish on a lowly grade C, only three from the bottom, when, in some cases, they may have as many as 18 years' experience.
The problem is also acute in the appointment of consultants, as a Commission for Racial Equality investigation showed in 1992. Black and Asian candidates were consistently less likely to be shortlisted for or appointed to senior registrar or consultant posts than white applicants. The Secretary of State pointed out recently the difficulty of recruiting nurses from ethnic minority communities. That is hardly surprising in view of those facts and the history of treatment of black nurses and midwives in the NHS over many years.
It is no wonder that the RCN president said:
"we need to change the trend. We need to challenge the racism and change the culture".
The BMJ article which I mentioned earlier rightly concluded, in my view, that understanding the concept of institutional racism is the key to understanding why the Lawrence inquiry team has used it to plot a way forward for the police and why it may be the key to the development of a truly equitable NHS.
As is clear from the definition of "institutional racism"—many noble Lords have mentioned this—there may well be no racist individuals involved; there may
890
be no intent; it is simply that the culture itself is discriminatory. That is not to say that valiant attempts have not already been made to try to correct the discrimination against both black patients and employees in the NHS. The current Secretary of State for Health and the NHS Executive have clearly demonstrated their commitment. They have done that in terms of setting "Recognising and Dealing with Racism" as a key priority in their health White Paper of 1997 and following that up with the launch, last December, of a campaign to tackle racial harassment in the NHS as part of its "Working Together" human resource strategy.
Good work is being done by others—for example, the Council of the Heads of Medical Schools in conjunction with the Commission for Racial Equality—to ensure that selection and admission procedures are fair and open. Progress has been made also in addressing inequalities in the distribution of merit awards. I welcome the new NHS equality awards. They help to shift the NHS culture. I welcome also the roadshows which the NHS Confederation has been organising with the NHS equal opportunities unit. Those are all important elements of the positive action which needs to be taken and developed to change NHS culture and practices.
The fact is, however, that the best intentions do not always produce results. The former Conservative Secretary of State for Health, Mrs. Bottomley, with very good intentions, published an eight-point plan in 1993 to promote equal opportunity within the NHS. It included a duty to work towards increasing the number of black nurses at G grade, which is one of the senior grades. Yet the results were not monitored systematically and it does not appear that the initiative had much effect at the end of the day.
As a result, I agree strongly with those commentators, not least the Commission for Racial Equality, who, both in their review of the Race Relations Act and in their response to the Macpherson Report, advocate a statutory duty on public bodies to promote racial equality.
During the recent passage of the Health Bill in this House, we debated the imposition of a duty to promote equal opportunity on certain parts of the health service; for example, the new commission for health improvement and the primary care trusts. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, gave considerable encouragement to the principle but, in the end, no amendment on that point was tabled by the Government. However, we were given some encouragement that that would appear during consideration of the Bill in another place.
At the time, the Minister said that she believed it would be wrong to lay an amendment before the House before we have made a searching examination of the issues facing the NHS both as an employer and as a provider of services. If that delay is needed to formulate a broad, over-arching duty for the health service rather than just elements of it, I can understand and support the reasons for the delay. However, without such a duty, together with a duty to monitor and report regularly, I do not believe that institutional racism will be eliminated within the NHS and we shall continue to

891
have reports such as those from the Policy Studies Institute, the Health Education Authority and UNISON which point up discrimination of every kind within the NHS.
Sir William Macpherson and the CRE together pointed the way forward and we should readily follow that path as a matter of urgency. In publishing the Lawrence action plan, the Home Secretary rightly made clear his view that the challenge presented by the inquiry was not just for the police but for society at large, and he undertook to set out a plan in the coming months on how to realise a broader vision of an anti-racist society. I very much welcome that commitment, but I hope that we shall not miss the opportunity to make those necessary amendments to the Health Bill in another place to ensure that the NHS is genuinely—in the words of the Minister—inclusive in all its dealings.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Knights: My Lords, first, I crave your Lordships' indulgence regarding the convention in relation to thanking maiden speakers and add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Imbert. I do so because some years ago I tried to persuade him to apply for the post of Chief Constable of the West Midlands, which I was about to relinquish. I failed and I am sure that London is very grateful that I did.
This evening we have heard many powerful and impressive speeches and at this late stage I propose to confine my comments solely to a few of the detailed recommendations made by Sir William.
It is clear, and, indeed, has always been clear, that the killing of Stephen Lawrence was a racist murder and a particularly horrible one. It was a particularly terrible example of the violent conduct which occurs far too often on the streets of our major cities. It is clear also that the investigation by the Metropolitan Police which followed was quite inadequate. There is clear evidence in Sir William's report of professional incompetence and a failure of leadership by senior officers.
The implication is that those faults sprang from institutional racism. However, they may have been due also to other faults and for other reasons. They may have been due to inadequate training or lack of experience in handling an inquiry of that magnitude. Perhaps too, bearing in mind the frequent incidents of violence which occur today, the officers had become less sensitive to the demands of the situation; had perhaps become blasé. There are some who would claim that the current police policies relating to tenure of office may have led to an inadequate performance on the part of those directing and managing such major crime incidents.
In a Statement to Parliament last month, the Home Secretary referred to Recommendation 4 of the report and indicated that Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary would be conducting a formal examination of unsolved murder investigations in the Metropolitan Police area since the Lawrence murder. I understand that there are something like 160 undetected murders. It will be interesting to see whether that professional examination of what has gone on
892
reveals any incompetence in the investigation of those other offences and whether it is more general than perhaps Sir William Macpherson's report indicates; and whether there is any difference, indeed, in the way that investigations are conducted into ethnic minority murders as opposed to the generality of such inquiries.
Much play has been made of the extent to which institutional racism as defined by Sir William exists not only in the police service but also in society generally. Certainly the figures of stops in the street must lead to the conclusion that ethnic minority youths at least are treated in a different way from those of the host community. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, indicated, the same is true of the way in which the criminal justice system operates. Research has clearly indicated that ethnic minority prisoners are disadvantaged in so far as bail and methods of trial and sentencing are concerned, and I believe that this has been largely ignored for far too long. One wonders why the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report of 1981 that,
"the attack on racial disadvantage must be more direct than it has been",
have not been followed through.
I welcome therefore the setting up of the Home Secretary's steering group to oversee and, more particularly, to monitor progress in the delivery of the programme set out in the recent report from the Home Secretary. One hopes that that will ensure that current efforts are continued, that there will be a sustained approach to all these recommendations and that their effect is carefully watched. Perhaps the direct attack of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on racial disadvantage will then be realised.
Whether or not poor training in investigative techniques or practices played a part in the original murder inquiry, there is clearly much work to be done in the field of racial awareness training, not only at all levels in the police service but also in all the other public and indeed private services. It was heartening to hear recently from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, of the work that is being done in the National Health Service. That is the sort of work which needs to be done throughout our public services.
So far as the police are concerned, following the Scarman Report and recognising that it did not possess the necessary experience and skills itself, with the Home Office the police service set up a unit at Brunel University to train the trainers in the field of racial awareness. Clearly that approach was not successful. I welcome the new contract entered into with the Ionann Consultancy which I understand will work with individual forces to design and develop training programmes for identified staff. In particular, I believe the police must trust the trainers. But unless they are ready to receive that which the trainers are offering because they believe the trainers have really got something to offer, the whole exercise will be a waste of time.
I do not, however, welcome the recommendation that disciplinary action against police officers should be available for at least five years after they have retired. It seems to me that if an officer's misconduct is so gross

893
that it is felt disciplinary proceedings after retirement are justified, it would be equally possible to prosecute him in the criminal courts for the common law offence of misconduct as a public officer. If convicted, consideration could then properly be given to a reduction in his pension in accordance with the current regulations. In this context also it is worth mentioning that when a complaint of misconduct is made against an officer, before it has even been investigated the chief constable can suspend him from membership of his force and from his office as constable, which effectively prevents the officer seeking to resign or retire, and therefore any discipline action could be taken before he left the force.
Finally, I refer to Recommendations 64, 65 and 66 about the recruitment and retention of ethnic minority staff. This has been a long-standing concern with the police service, long before the Scarman Report in fact. Many police forces were trying very hard to deal with this apparently intractable problem. Some progress has been made. The noble Lord, Lord Imbert, gave your Lordships the figures for the Metropolitan Police. In West Midlands there were 42 ethnic minority officers at the time of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. It is interesting to think that the earliest of those are now eligible to retire. The figure now is 315, or 4.19 per cent of the force—still a long way short, some 862, of the target which I gather was set yesterday by the Home Secretary. That would amount to 16.11 per cent of the force to be achieved in the next 10 years.
I am surprised however that no mention has been made in this context of the civilian support staff. West Midlands, for example, has 224 ethnic minority employees, 6.74 per cent. of that particular branch of the service. These too should have been taken into account in arriving at the recruitment targets which have been set. Whether Mr. Straw's target for individual forces will stimulate and increase the success in this field remains to be seen, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, I hope that it will not lead to a reduction in standards in order to reach his figures. That would be unfair to other members of the force and to the ethnic minority recruits themselves. They wish to be accepted, I am sure, on their own merits and as recognised equals.
Earlier this year, when speaking in the debate in your Lordships' House following the presentation of the Home Secretary's original Statement in another place on the Lawrence Report, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to a screen separating communities. If that screen is to be removed it will require action by the whole of our society, and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, earlier this evening were relevant to that aspect. If we wish to develop the trust and confidence which are so essential to remove this evil, it must be trust and confidence not just between the police and the community but within the community itself. Unless this happens we should not be surprised if the police develop a defensive reaction which could only be to everyone's detriment. I believe the police are as much aware of the problems as anyone else and as anxious as anyone else to arrive at a solution. It will only be successful, however, if we all work together to do it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I adopt the word "shameful" that was used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, earlier today in relation to the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Murder may be committed during a family dispute, during a robbery or as a result of a sexual attack or a fight that may break out between two people, and it is usually not too difficult to decide who has committed the crime. Motive, however, does not have to be proved on any criminal charge. It helps to characterise and to identify potential suspects.
In this case the very first information given to a woman police officer by Duwayne Brooks at the scene was that there was an attack by a group of white youths who were calling out racist abuse, including the word "nigger". There was an eye witness called Joseph Shepherd who knew Stephen Lawrence and went straight from the scene, on the bus, to the home of his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, and described exactly that same type of attack.
And yet page 1 of the policy file that is contained in the annexure to the report sets out the annotation of Detective Superintendent Crampton on that day, 23rd April:"Murder, identity of suspects unknown, possible racial motive". There was the clearest evidence from eye witnesses that a racist attack had taken place. The very first task for the police would be to identify just such a group in the area who might carry out an attack of that sort. The next day, names were brought forward and just such a group was identified as the kind of people who would, for no reason other than the colour of a person's skin, carry out an attack of that sort.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, that no one with practical experience of police investigations into murder cases can be anything other than deeply concerned at the extensive failures in the Lawrence investigation to follow ordinary police procedures. There was no scene log, no incident log, no immediate co-ordinated search, no record of house-to-house inquiries, and inadequate control of operations. Information was not properly collated or communicated. The fatal error was the delay in arresting the suspects, which lost the potential for obtaining scientific evidence, tracing weapons and interrogating suspects early in the case. Such investigations are so routine, so usual, that when they do not take place suspicions are aroused. I fully understand the concern of the Lawrence family and their lawyers who sought a deeper motive and reason for those failures.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Knights, should recall that the inquiry team concluded that they could not accept that institutional racism was universally the cause of the failure of this investigation. They did not put these failures down entirely to institutional racism. While they did identify areas of the investigation that were affected by racism, in the main those were aspects concerned with the interviews with Duwayne Brooks and with the treatment of Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence.
Further, the inquiry did not believe that any discrimination or disadvantage shown by the police towards witnesses or anyone else was overt. I have no

895
doubt that overt racism exists within the police, as it does within the general population. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that it goes way beyond the police and that overt racism does exist and must be attacked. So far as the police are concerned, it must be rooted out by disciplinary means. I am pleased to see that this is an issue which the Home Secretary has tackled in his action plan.
But institutional racism exhibits itself in a more insidious form in racial stereotyping. In my experience, assumptions are constantly made about the way in which ethnic groups act or react, not just by the police but throughout the criminal justice system—by the lawyers, the judges, and indeed by juries. It is a fact that an accused, a victim or a witness is an individual, with his or her own personality and way of behaving. That fact is so frequently overlooked.
It is quite wrong for any police officer to claim in his dealing with people that he is colour-blind. Institutional racism is blind altogether, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. The police must, on the contrary, have their eyes opened. They must be trained to recognise the differing modes of speech, attitude, cultural mores and background of the different ethnic groups and to look beyond those differences at the individual person with whom they are dealing. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has announced targets for police forces. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Dholakia that they should not be quotas. I hope that when the Home Secretary announces those targets he bears in mind that all the police forces and the policemen who serve in them must have their eyes opened to cultural differences and the consequences of those differences.
But whatever the root causes of the failures of the police in the Lawrence case, the result was that there was wholly insufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution against the suspects. Any lawyer would have recognised that. Indeed, the inquiry eventually concluded that there was no greater evidence against the five suspects after the inquiry had taken place and all the witnesses had been called than there was previously. The inquiry team said that if they thought it right to indicate even a probability that the suspects were involved in the attack, they would not hesitate to do so, and no further evidence had emerged.
On a consideration of the findings of the inquiry as to the evidence available to the CPS in June 1993, it is obvious that a conviction could not be sustained virtually on the identification evidence of Duwayne Brooks alone. That evidence was weakened by comments he had made to Detective Sergeant Crowley immediately after the identification parade that he had been prompted by a friend as to who the suspects were, and he agreed ultimately with that evidence. All those problems are in the report and are fully set out in the subsequent ruling of Mr. Justice Curtis at the Old Bailey. However, discontinuance of the prosecution by the CPS left it open to bring further proceedings against the suspects if further evidence came to light in the future.
The decision to bring a private prosecution in the light of the subsequently obtained surveillance tapes was characteristically for Mr. Michael Mansfield a bold and
896
courageous decision. No doubt he appreciated the difficulties that faced him, and no doubt he advised his clients to that effect, but they must have been driven on by despair. The report reveals that the Branch Crown Prosecutor of the CPS, a Mr. Youngerwood, who had discontinued the original prosecution after long and anxious consideration with his team and with counsel, informed Mr. Khan, solicitor for the Lawrence family, that although the CPS would co-operate to the full, the private prosecution was in his view hopeless.
In the light of that conclusion, it is surprising that the Attorney-General of the day did not step in to take over the prosecution as was his right, and issue a nolle prosequi, which would have brought the proceedings to an end but would have reserved the position for the future. The inquiry refers briefly to the power of the Attorney-General to do that, but takes the matter no further. It would undoubtedly add to the completeness of the inquiry if the Minister could inform me, either now or at some later stage, whether a nolle prosequi (the procedure for stopping a prosecution) was ever considered. It is my view that the overall public interest required that procedure, although it may have been embarrassing to the government of the time and opened them up in the short term to allegations of bias and racism. The result of that prosecution continuing and failing in the way that it did is that the three suspects who stood trial cannot be tried again even if fresh and viable evidence emerges against them.
The obvious injustice which might arise in this case as a result of the private prosecution has led to a call by the inquiry to debate and reconsider the law on "autrefois acquit or convict", or the law relating to double jeopardy, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, referred. Although the inquiry raised this question, it gave no argument in support. Paragraph 7.46 of the report simply reads:
"Both we and others during our Part 2 hearings have considered, in the context of this case, whether the law which absolutely protects those who have been acquitted from any further prosecution for the same or a closely allied offence should prevail … We simply indicate that perhaps in modem conditions such absolute protection may sometimes lead to injustice. Full and proper safeguards would be essential".
The opening up of this question, as a result of a case which is highly unusual and which the alteration of that law could in no way affect—because it could not be made retrospective—is an invitation to attack a fundamental constitutional safeguard. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out, it is an ancient and established principle of the common law, set out in Hawkins' and Hale's Pleas of the Crown, adopted by the Americans in the Fifth Amendment to their Constitution, their Bill of Rights, in 1789 and in the subsequent written constitutions of many common law countries.
The rationale is that we must have absolute finality to a jury's verdict of acquittal, no matter how erroneous its decision may be. Who is to say that it is erroneous? If in a subsequent trial a person is found guilty when he has previously been found not guilty, which verdict is correct? Should there be a third trial to determine, two to one, which verdict is correct?

897
The system we have in this country is that the prosecution has the opportunity of presenting its whole case; the magistrate may refuse to commit the case; and the judge may withdraw the case from the jury if he concludes that the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, cannot sustain a conviction. But ultimately there has to be finality. Your Lordships only have to consider the shadow that would follow for the whole of his life a man who had been acquitted if a reopening of his trial were to take place. The basic principle of the presumption of innocence would be undermined.
These principles have been developed over many centuries as a result of abuses by arbitrary government. The double jeopardy rule is a major reason why we have sustained democratic government in this country since our own Bill of Rights of 1688. That is just one of the principles that is called into question here.
The principle of the presumption of innocence is for everyone. It may be grossly offensive that the suspects are given a platform on television and radio for softball questioning, but there is still a presumption of innocence. These are principles to which we must cling. We cannot allow them to be eroded by a case of this kind.
Those are comments on only two of the matters which emerge in an otherwise fine report. I think the whole House will congratulate Sir William Macpherson on all the efforts that were put into the inquiry itself and the preparation of the report and on his considered conclusions. Unusually for me, I have to congratulate the Home Secretary on setting up the inquiry, on carrying it through and on bringing forward his action plan with positive steps to implement the report's recommendations.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, on his maiden speech. He had a distinguished career in the police force and was a highly regarded Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that we look forward to hearing many more speeches from him in this House in the future.
The debate has been remarkable because it has included contributions from four former senior members and one current senior member of the Police Service. That has given the debate a unique perspective on the report and on the police service in general. There have been some exceptional speeches, none more so than that of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick.
The original cause of the debate was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a boy doing his A-levels, similar in many ways to thousands of other boys in this country. What was different was that he was black, and this was a racist murder. That started a chain of events that caused the police investigation to proceed in a way that none of your Lordships would ever have dreamed would have happened.
898
To me, what stands out in the report is the dignity and bravery, in the face of terrible adversity, of the Lawrence family. Their conduct, I believe, should be an example to us all.
I next pay tribute to Sir William Macpherson and his inquiry team. His report is a very good one, which has provided your Lordships with a basis for discussion of the changes that are needed in this country. It is a report which will be debated not only in Parliament but also outside Parliament.
Your Lordships have expressed differing views this evening on the inquiry's recommendations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and others were concerned about the proposed offence of people uttering racist words in their own home. That concern is shared by the Home Secretary.
There was much that your Lordships agreed with. All seemed to agree that the police should be subject to the Race Relations Act. But other issues, such as prosecution after acquittal, are of concern to your Lordships.
I do not intend to go into all the recommendations this evening. Noble Lords have chosen the ones in which they are interested. I simply say that we on this side of the House broadly support the recommendations. Nor do I intend to comment on the details of the case, which were the subject of the speech of the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who very eloquently dealt with some of the legal aspects of the case.
Perhaps I may turn to institutional racism. Yes, it does exist. But I share the concerns highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, with regard to its definition, meaning and effect.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Birmingham said that institutional racism was like original sin. With all humility, I disagree with the right reverend Prelate. I do not believe that children are born racist. I do not believe that small children have any racist attitudes at all. It is only when they start to grow up and absorb the influences of their family, school or society that racist attitudes can start to appear. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, is right that such attitudes can appear at the depressingly early age of six years.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I used original sin only as an analogy. I did not say that it was original sin, but that it was like original sin.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. That is the point with which I disagree with him. I said that I disagreed with his analogy of original sin. However, I do not want to turn this into a debate on theology because I am quite sure that the right reverend Prelate will do much better than I can in that respect.
We are also concerned about the definition of a "racist incident". The Minister said that the proposals in the report were a simplified version. My concern is that perhaps we are making it too simple and not just clearer. The report says that it should be simple and clearer. This

899
is an area that must be closely monitored by the Home Office to ensure that incidents that are not necessarily racist in nature do not become so classified just in case they may be racist. That certainly would not help either the collection of statistics or the police in dealing with such circumstances.
Education was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Education on this is important and is part of the Home Secretary's recommendations, which we welcome. If we start such education at an early age, we can do a lot to combat racism in this country.
I believe that noble Lords should also pay a tribute to Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I believe that his force does a very good job. As has been claimed by some, particularly in another place, it is not a force that is institutionally corrupt or incompetent. I believe that the majority of officers in the Metropolitan Police do their very best to serve society in very difficult circumstances. We must pay tribute to Sir Paul Condon's commitment to pushing through the recommendations and to bringing his force up to the standards that he wishes to achieve.
There were major failures of the police in the investigation of this murder. Those failures were compounded the more senior the officers who became involved in the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis said, it got worse the higher up one got. One senior officer behaved in an extraordinary way, suggesting that his officers should sue the Lawrence family for racism. By any standards, it was an extraordinary saga.
Lessons have been learnt by the police. We welcome the fact that the Police Federation, the Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers accept the need for independent investigation of serious complaints. We also welcome the improvement in training on race matters, and improvements with regard to building trust in the community and relationships with ethnic minorities, together with an increase in the availability of family liaison officers. But this must mean an increase in budget. The response paper provided by the Home Secretary states that money must be provided but it is somewhat opaque as to how that is related to current Home Office spending.
We must support the Home Secretary's plan to recruit an additional 8,000 officers from ethnic communities. I agree with the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the setting of targets. However, if this is to be delivered within the three years announced by the Home Secretary, how is the money to be provided? Will the Treasury provide the money to the police? If not, it will perhaps become an increasing burden on the police service. Local authorities may also be put under pressure.
I return to one particular recommendation: the confiscation of pension in whole or in part. This matter was raised by several noble Lords. It must be treated with great care and caution. One aspect of the Police Service that I always found particularly strange was the fact that policemen under investigation could escape any form of sanction by retiring on the grounds of ill health.
900
It was almost a scam. No one else had that unique ability to escape the investigation of improper or perhaps illegal behaviour. I welcome the fact that that is no longer the case and that the police are treated on the same basis as everyone else in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, favoured the abolition of the right of silence for police officers as for any other member of the public. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says about that. Allowing the police to be placed in a worse position regarding their pension rights than is any other civil servant seems rather bizarre. As one noble Lord said, its only effect will be to make police officers seek private pensions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was concerned about the television programme and the fact that a fair trial might not be possible. I believe that that view is shared by many in this country. However, we should not look solely at television coverage. I believe that television and the press as a whole must consider their behaviour and the effect of, frankly, inflammatory headlines on all the families involved. Did they help or, as I suspect, prejudice the possibility of a fair trial?
The noble and learned Lord was also concerned about the inquiry into the leak. So are we. Leaks are always serious. However, what makes the matter more serious in this case is that it was not a casual leak but an attempt to effect acceptance of the report by Parliament and the public. I look forward to the Minister telling the House when we can expect the Statement on the leak that the Home Secretary has promised.
I should also like to ask the Minister about the witnesses who gave evidence and whose details were, extraordinarily, included in the annex to the inquiry. How many families have had to move? Will they be able to return to the areas from which they originally came? What help are they being given now and in the future? The Government must not lose sight of people who came forward in difficult circumstances to give evidence and who are now forced to leave their community.
As my noble friend Lord Cope said at the beginning of this debate, we must all strive to build mutual trust between the ethnic communities in this country and the Police Service. However, we are not concerned solely with the Police Service. It is a matter of building confidence in the institutions of government in this country. The attitudes of the police reflect those that are prevalent in other institutions of government, central or local, whether local services, social services, the Ministry of Defence, the National Health Service or perhaps institutions that include membership of the Church. We must use this not only to improve the police and policing in this country, but to get rid of racism in any of the institutions that everybody in this country has a right to trust.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this has been a good debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, on his contribution. The last time we

901
appeared together in a public place was in a debate at Durham University not too long ago. I note that he has lost none of the skill that I admired on that occasion.
Many noble Lords have contributed notably to the debate. It is difficult to select. However, perhaps I may mention the considered and careful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick. I hope, too, that his brothers in the Church of England might study what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said. A number of noble Lords, among them the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out the extraordinary difference in numbers between the hundreds of noble Lords present on Tuesday to express at some length what some thought might have been a powerful prejudice and the few who have been present today. The noble Earl is right. It is somewhat disappointing and rather a reproach to this House. The noble Earl was not alone in making that point; it is a powerful one.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, put his finger entirely on the point at the beginning of his remarks, with which I entirely agreed. He said that the police in this country, by and large, do a good job—better than most elsewhere. I think that that is a fair summary despite the blemishes that have been disclosed in the report.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is extremely generous, as were other noble Lords, when speaking about the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. Two dates are worth bearing in mind. Stephen Lawrence was murdered on 22nd April 1993 because he was black, and for no other reason. Despite the efforts of Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, there was no inquiry until July 1997. If Jack Straw does nothing other than this in the whole of his tenure as Home Secretary, he will go down notably in the history of modern times as regards the setting up of the inquiry, the publication of the report and the immediate response of the action plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that the report is a most significant milestone. I entirely agree. I think that it will be more significant than what happened after the Scarman Report. I congratulate Sir William Macpherson. I did so at the first opportunity when we had a brief statement on the report. It is a notable piece of work. Not everyone agrees with all of it, but most people agree with most of it; and that is quite an extraordinary achievement.
Undoubtedly, Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence are deeply decent and dignified people. I shared a platform with them recently and it is quite humbling to see how they behave in continuing adversity—not least the mindless stupidity of defacing even the memorial at the place of their son's death.
We have taken some steps already. It has been of continuing concern for me that at inquests, in particular of those who died in circumstances in which the state may have some responsibility, the one class of persons denied advance disclosure of information is those who I believe have the greatest moral claim; namely, the families. That has stopped now. Fortunately, not only do I have oversight of the coroner's system but now the prison system. Therefore since 1st April of this year
902
families will have advance disclosure of information on those who died in prison custody. By the end of this month, they will also be in a position to have advance disclosure as regards those who died in police custody. That requires no expense of any consequence. All it requires is determination.
I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others said about Jack Straw. As the years pass and as we remain longer in Government, I hope that we shall not lose the decent impulse to respond in a proper way—as opposed to the notoriously defensive way in which the Home Office was previously run, politically, not by the civil servants.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked specifically about the witness protection scheme. There is a witness protection unit. It has worked closely with the Home Office and—I pay tribute to it—the local authority, Greenwich Council, to ensure the safety of those affected. I do not think it is right to go into specific detail. The long-term plans of families who may have had to move, or feel uneasy, I think should be private to them at this stage.
A number of questions were raised about the leak inquiry. There was a leak. I dealt with that on the last occasion. The reason that we did not want leaks was as a matter of decent conduct towards the Lawrences. I should have thought that most people would have come to the conclusion that they have suffered enough and were entitled to first sight of the report. That is water under the bridge now. Whether or not the injunction was rightly applied for, I do not think will assist us on this present occasion. The report was published in full. Sir William Macpherson took full responsibility for that and—I am not putting this in any partisan way—he said in his letter to the Home Secretary at the beginning of the report,
"I take personal responsibility for all that is set out in the Report".
Everyone regrets that material was included which should not have been, but that in no way takes away from the long-term effect of which the report is capable.
In respect of the Kent inquiry, in fairness to the Kent officers, Sir William Macpherson commented that the Kent review was described as thorough, painstaking and fair. So this is not a story of continuing incompetence; and I believe that that needs to be put on record.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked me about the widening of the curricular aspect of anti-racism. I paraphrase. I undertake to be in contact with my noble friend and colleague Lady Blackstone, who is always extremely open minded and receptive when these matters are put to her.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about the specific targets for reducing the ethnic minority exclusions from schools. I can confirm that that target has been accepted. It follows the social exclusions report on truancy and schools exclusions which was published last May, and we have accepted that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, also asked about the requirement in law which might put a duty on local authorities to promote equality. One finds that at present in the Race Relations Act 1976. Local authorities are required to discharge their functions to eliminate

903
unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. I recognise that the noble Lord may say that that Act has been on the statute book for a while. It is a good reminder that local authorities can perhaps return to those powers and review their internal structures and workings.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, asked about the Scottish Law Commission. We are discussing with the Law Commission here the timescale and terms of reference for its review. But I understand that there is no intention to involve the Law Commission in Scotland because of the role that the Lord Advocate has in the conduct of prosecutions in Scotland. That is my best understanding.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, to whom, as always, I am grateful for his approach, asked about training in the Home Office. The new Home Office contract to which the noble Lord, Lord Knights, referred, focuses on the issue of training. The new consultants—Ioanann Management Consultants—are working with individual forces to develop training along those lines. I said in my opening remarks that the Home Office, as with other government departments, has no grand story to tell. We must examine what we do internally. That is what the Home Secretary has promised to do.
I cannot give a specific date on which the leak inquiry will conclude. Quite a lot of what I read in the newspaper about the leak inquiry is utterly and completely 100 per cent. wrong. It stated that I was carefully cross-examined. That is untrue. It stated that with other colleagues I was under suspicion because I had a copy of the report. That is completely untrue. So yet again, even when your photograph is in the paper, do not believe everything you read.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, spoke about more money. One sees in the action plan that we are already committed to an investment of £1.24 billion over the next three years. Returning to the fundamental point I made earlier, that is not an optional extra. One cannot run an efficient police force except on the basis of trust. One will not have that trust unless one goes towards those targets. Therefore it will be obligatory. It is not an option; it has been an option for far too long.
The Home Secretary has given an undertaking that for the first time the Race Relations Act will apply to all public services. That is extremely important, specific questions having been put to me in particular as to whether the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be covered. The answer is yes. I can give no wider commitment about the further extension of other legislation relating to equality. The Home Secretary's present conclusion is that it is easy to kick things into the long grass and even if we bring about things imperfectly we ought to do so as immediately as we can.
The Home Office has a departmental race equality action plan. The management board is taking positive steps to address the issue. I believe that we should return to it in this House at regular intervals. That is why the annual report, which is mentioned in the action plan, is so very important. I know that I am waiting for the boomerang to come back, possibly to strike me on the
904
back of the head, but that is a useful risk to run. I welcome all scrutiny and questions in your Lordships' House because sometimes I am enabled to nudge gently and cajole officials to say that if we do not have a decent story to tell it is I who will be rebuked by your Lordships.
What has happened here is that a British family have been denied justice. Apart from the cruel incident of the murder of their young boy, they have been monstrously let down by the whole system. So, as a conclusion upon which to ponder, we have a British citizen doing nothing wrong, going home of an evening to parents who are waiting, and who is murdered by racist thugs. Incompetence and institutional racism provide them no remedy.
I return to the disparity between the number of Members present the other evening and today. I wonder what Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence think about that when they look at the figures—but then he was only a black young man! It is a job for everyone. It is worth saying, even if there is dissent from those opposite me, because if we all say that we must examine our own hearts and minds and I ask an uncomfortable question, does that not underline the point that everyone has made, although not perhaps as personally and as disagreeably as some people may find it?
The police are in a very difficult position because they are in constant contact with the public, often in disagreeable circumstances. I am not able to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, because I had not anticipated it. However, I shall research it and write to him about the Attorney-General's involvement or non-involvement and the question of nolle prosequi. But he and I have both prosecuted and defended over the years. We know perfectly well that the good police officer is in the majority and that he or she is a pearl beyond price in our society. It is a very difficult job. When your house has been burgled, or you are terrified that your house will be attacked, or your relatives have been murdered, the first people you go to are not Members of this House or another place but the police. Terrible damage has been done to the police service and the mutual trust between the public and the police in consequence, first. of the occurrence of Stephen's death, thereafter the incompetence which followed, and thereafter the damning conclusions of this report.
I believe that there is a new tide in our society. I believe that Sir Paul Condon was rightly retained as Metropolitan Commissioner not least because of the work he has done in rooting out racism and corruption in his own force, which is a very difficult and isolated situation to be in. I believe that the Metropolitan Police are learning the lessons. That is not intended simply to be a cosmetic remark. They need assistance, public support and informed constructive criticism. Above all, they need the action report and the detailed, structured plan which has been set out by the Home Secretary.
A number of your Lordships have said that this is nothing simply to do with the police. I absolutely agree. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I touched on a number of other services, including the

905
Probation and Prison Services. A number of your Lordships spoke about education and national health. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in a powerful speech, said that we find institutional racism in all parts of our society and in all other societies. That is true. I return to the wider community in which reside, or resided, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Sir William Macpherson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and myself. I am not sure what marvellous tale we could tell if there were an inquiry into the various aspects of the legal profession in this country and how it organises itself in its various arcane ways. I do not believe that we would come out of it enormously well and we might come out of it rather badly, to put it at its most neutral.
We have all been saying many of the same things for far too long. We have all been saying that we must do better and how wrong and wicked racism is. That is no good to the Lawrences, no good at all. Therefore, by way of beginning, I believe that setting up the inquiry was a courageous step. Getting on with the action plan and publishing the report within a matter of weeks is absolutely critical. It will be a long journey and I believe that we should focus on the issue year in and year out. Although I can commit no one in terms of the usual channels, perhaps when the annual report is published we should spend some time considering it with perhaps rather more of our colleagues present.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) Order 1999
8.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order concerns an agreement designed to extend and deepen economic and political co-operation between the European Union and Jordan. The Association Agreement with Jordan was signed on 24th November 1997. It forms part of the EU' s objective of creating a free trade area with the Mediterranean region by the year 2010.
The agreement aims to strengthen relations through increased political, economic and commercial co-operation. It includes steps to liberalise trade and harmonise Jordan's economic structures with the EU. This process should create new opportunities for trade and investment, bringing benefits to business and consumers in the European Union. It will help to create the right climate for stable economic and social development in Jordan. It contains provisions for
906
improving political dialogue and co-operation on issues of mutual concern; for example, the environment, drugs and transport. The agreement represents an important development in the European Union's relations with the Mediterranean. Once implemented, it will provide the basis for a new level of communication and co-operation at all levels.
Britain has a longstanding and close relationship with Jordan. The death of King Hussein was a matter of great sadness and regret to all of us. When the Prime Minister met King Abdullah shortly after the death of his father, he assured him of Britain's solidarity and support at this time of transition for Jordan.
At the General Affairs Council on 22nd February, the United Kingdom reiterated the UK's support for EU assistance to Jordan at this difficult time. EU Ministers concluded that the Commission should table proposals for extra EU assistance to Jordan soon. We look forward to those proposals.
I ask the House to support these important objectives and to send a clear signal of our close relationship with, and commitment to, Jordan by giving its approval to the principles behind this agreement. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (Wales) Order 1999
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 10th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to create a new Welsh traffic area to replace existing arrangements where North Wales is part of the north western traffic area and South Wales is a separate traffic area.
Traffic areas exist for the purpose of administering the system of licensing for operators of public service vehicles—that is, buses and coaches—and heavy goods vehicles, and for the registration of local bus services outside London. Great Britain is divided into eight traffic areas. Licences are granted by independent traffic commissioners appointed to those areas.
Operators must have a licence issued for each traffic area in which they have an operating centre, specify such centres and how many vehicles may be kept at each. The licence holder must inform the traffic commissioner of the registration marks and changes of vehicle specified on the licence.
The order makes detailed provision for dealing with licences affected by the boundary change to ensure a smooth transition and continuity of traffic commissioner functions and responsibilities.
Broadly, the order provides that, on reorganisation, a former South Wales traffic area licence becomes a Welsh traffic area licence; a north western traffic area licence which specifies only operating centres in Wales becomes a Welsh traffic area licence; a north western traffic area licence which specifies operating centres in both England and Wales is split (in consultation with the licence holder) to create a Welsh traffic area licence for the operating centre and vehicles based in Wales, and an amended north western traffic area licence for the operating centres and vehicles based in England; where as a consequence, an operator finishes up with two Welsh traffic area licences, those licences would be amalgamated in due course (within five years).
Specifically, the order amends the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1990 by defining the limits of the north western traffic area to exclude from it the former counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd and to add the areas of those former counties of the present South Wales traffic area to create a new all-Wales traffic area. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 10th March be approved 112th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of the order. Before saying anything substantive I should like to declare an interest in that I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and no doubt I have several members in the affected area.
When I first saw the order I skimmed through it, but I noticed on page 4, Article 2(1)(b) a reference to "good" not "goods" operator's licence; that typographical error should be corrected.
It was not apparent to me at the time that the traffic area office for Wales will be in Birmingham. I accept that the previous government would have had a single traffic area for Wales for reasons of economy, and that initially the office may be in Birmingham, but the situation has now changed. The Government have set up a Welsh Assembly. How will Welsh goods vehicle operators and PSV operators feel about having to correspond with a traffic area office in Birmingham, in the centre of England? It does not concern operators only, but some people may wish to object to a goods vehicle operator's licence and will have to communicate with Birmingham. These objectors often raise sensitive issues; for example, access to and egress from premises in residential areas. They could be made by relatively unsophisticated, if sensible, people. Therefore, objectors may lack confidence if, in the light of the existence of the Welsh Assembly, they have to communicate with a traffic area office in England. The objectors do not have to pay for the traffic area office but they do have a stake in it. Presumably there are Welsh speakers at the Birmingham traffic area office, but it would be much easier to recruit them in Wales.
I believe that there will be a certain amount of disappointment that post the setting up of the Assembly the traffic area office will be in Birmingham and that the money for operating that office will go to Birmingham rather than somewhere in Wales.
908
I am sure that the Minister will point out that the DVLA is in Swansea, but that covers the whole of the UK and it has to be located somewhere. It certainly does not need to be in London, and for obvious economic reasons Swansea is a good place to locate it.
The Minister will also tell us about IT problems. These problems were known before the election. The Government have been in power for two years. There are only 8,000 operators in Wales and therefore the amount of data to be handled by the IT system is riot excessive. Can the Minister say how old the IT system is which operates in Birmingham?
The Minister in another place was asked about the timescale for moving the office to a location in Wales, but she could not help honourable Members in Committee. I hope that the Minister can be a little more helpful this evening because we are very likely to ask that question.
I am grateful to the Minister in another place for supporting my proposed Bill to facilitate the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles. However, that could not work very well without a first-class IT system. It would be desirable if operators were able to notify the traffic area office electronically using the Internet. When I wish to buy electronic or mechanical components, I can do so on the Internet through RS Components. It took humble me only an hour to master the system. It would be of great benefit to operators if they could make their notifications immediately electronically.
In conclusion, I am content, but I believe that post-devolution the people of Wales will be surprised to find themselves communicating with an office in England rather than in Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am taken back, by nostalgia, to the days when I used to argue on behalf of local bus operators, very profitably, in front of the North West traffic commissioners, who will no longer have any sway over my part of Wales. I am concerned that South Wales appears to be gobbling up North Wales, which is entirely against the principles of devolution, as discussed in the Government of Wales Bill.
However, the references to Birmingham do not appear in the order. I would have assumed that the bringing together of these various areas is in order that the powers may be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. If that is the case, where is the office to be located in future?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I did not notice that the traffic area office was to be in Wales: I found that out when I was reading the proceedings in another place.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise that an "s" was omitted. All I can say—and I say it with caution as someone who had a Welsh grandfather—is that, living in the north, I can understand why people use the word "good" in error.
The equipment is approximately 10 years old. The timescale for the introduction of new IT equipment to be considered and for the process to be completed is

909
2000, when electronic notification could be introduced. It would also be the appropriate time for consideration to be given to any representations for relocation within the Principality.
The function is not to be devolved to the Welsh Assembly but, having worked closely for a long number of years with representatives of the Welsh counties, it would not surprise me if representation were to be made at that stage regarding that. A very wide consultation exercise was carried out with the industries concerned and with a wide range of other interested parties in England and Wales. Perhaps on a separate occasion I would be interested to find out from the noble Lord whether he was successful in the representations that he made.
The Birmingham traffic area office which will administer the Welsh area licences will provide facilities for operators who wish to conduct their business in the Welsh language. The traffic area network agreed in 1998 was a Welsh language scheme with the Welsh Language Board. Every effort has been made to ensure that operators based in Wales are not inconvenienced by this arrangement. There have been no complaints about the impact in terms of routine business. When a traffic commissioner decides to hold a public inquiry, it is always held locally by the traffic commissioner or his deputies. Our proposal for a Welsh traffic area, if it is approved, is for it to be run from Birmingham, which already deals with the larger number of operators based in Wales.
Perhaps I may respond to some of the points touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. An office was located in Cardiff before March 1997 serving South Wales, but it was closed by the previous government. At the same time, the office in Manchester, which served operators in North Wales, Merseyside and the north-west, was also closed. Licensing administration for operators in South Wales was switched to the traffic area office in Birmingham for North Wales and for the north-west to the Leeds office.
I hope that I have answered the points raised by noble Lords. If I have omitted to answer any fine point of detail I will of course write to the noble Lord concerned. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fifth Amendment) Order 1999
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 18th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move the second and third orders standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The orders are to implement in the United Kingdom the provisions of Montreal Protocol No. 4 in relation to the Warsaw Convention. The protocol allows for the use of more modern data processing methods in the international carriage of cargo by air.
The Warsaw Convention is the international agreement which establishes the legal basis for the liability of air carriers with respect to the international carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo. It was signed in 1929 and amended in 1955 at The Hague. The convention was further amended by four protocols signed in Montreal in 1975.
A sufficient number of ratifications to bring Montreal Protocol No. 4 into force have now been received and, since the UK has signed and in 1984 ratified the protocol, it is necessary for UK legislation to be updated to reflect its coming into force. To bring the protocol into effect in the UK two separate Orders in Council are needed. The Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of Protocol No. 4 of Montreal 1975) Order 1999 amends the Carriage by Air Act 1961, introducing a new schedule setting out the convention as amended by Montreal Protocol No. 4 for the purposes of international carriage by air. The Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fifth Amendment) Order 1999 amends the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967, amending Schedule 1 to incorporate the provisions of Montreal Protocol No. 4 for domestic carriage by air, save that documentation requirements are not included.
By virtue of the provisions of the 1961 Act, affirmative resolution is needed by both Houses of Parliament. Although the second order can only be made using the powers given by the first, it is proper for both orders to be taken together for the purposes of parliamentary process. A voluntary memorandum has been submitted to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments showing that the making of the orders will be undertaken on a consecutive basis by the Privy Council.
We have notified both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office of our intention to implement Montreal Protocol No. 4 in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so that separate action can be taken in respect of other territories on whose behalf the UK originally ratified the protocol. The department has also consulted widely with airlines and other interested parties. Broadly, airlines welcome the implementation of the protocol since it will allow them to dispense with the costly, paper-based system of data processing.
These orders have been drafted to provide for implementation into UK domestic law of international obligations which we accepted in 1984. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 18th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, perhaps I should speak now because I believe the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has the last word.
These are innocuous orders as far as I can make out. However, it reassures one that the process of legal creation is not moving so rapidly that the pace of change is too fast for us to keep up. The Warsaw Convention was signed in 1929; it was amended in 1955; in 1975 the protocol was written in Montreal; it was signed by us at some time in the 1980s; and now—good heavens!—it is being implemented into British law. It seems an excellent idea that one should not have to use 12-page documents to chase, as it were, the progress of every piece of cargo through its movement across national boundaries and that one can rely for legal purposes on one's electronic coverage of that piece of cargo. As I understand it, that is the point of the first of the orders. The second order has the same effect as concerns the carriage of cargo inside the United Kingdom.
The only point I have to make is that, given that we are now in 1999 and we all know what is due to happen on 1st January 2000, I hope that everyone's electronic equipment is in full working order.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear explanation of the orders and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for saying that I have the last word. I do not really have the last word on this matter—in a way. we have all had the last word. The first order has taken 25 years to come before the House. Not only that, I understand that next month a new convention will be discussed that may well change the order. But if the new convention takes 25 years to come into force, we may not necessarily need to worry about it.
It is a fairly unique order. Nearly half of the pages of the Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of Protocol No. 4 of Montreal, 1975) Order 1999 are written in French. That must be fairly unique for an order before your Lordships' House. Presumably it goes back to the days—I must be careful what I say because I do not want to offend any of our French friends—when French was, indeed, a diplomatic language. It was used extensively in Warsaw in 1929 and is still, therefore, kept as being an important language—it may be to some, but I shall not go into that.
Having failed French O-level, I shall not ask the Minister to say whether she can give me an absolute guarantee that this is an absolutely true translation of every single paragraph of the English from the French. However, I have two serious questions to ask the Minister, to neither of which do I expect a reply from her tonight. A reply in writing will be perfectly adequate.
912
First, the order imposes a fixed limit for cargo, as was set out in 1975. However, I gather that the new convention which, as I said last month is to be discussed, will consider a draft where the limits can be broken if proof of wilful misconduct by the carrier under Article 21A, paragraph 5, is proved. Can the Minister reply to me in writing as to whether Her Majesty's Government support this amendment to the convention as it now stands?
Secondly, the Minister may recall the passage of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998 which was the subject of some controversy in this House and elsewhere. This is now under judicial review as a result of a case brought by IATA. Indeed, judgment may be given next week. I gather that some of this order depends upon that judgment. How does that judgment, therefore, affect these orders? Again, I do not expect a reply now. A written reply will be perfectly adequate.
Otherwise, I welcome these two orders. They cannot be described, as the Minister stated, as being brought before us in a great rush.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I welcome the contributions on this important matter. I shall try to answer such questions as are possible to answer at this stage. Perhaps I may deal with the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. As he recognised, there is a court case in process at present following a decision by IATA to take the department to court. As the matter is currently sub judice, I would prefer to reply to the noble Lord in writing. I shall be delighted to write to him also on the quite complicated technical question he raised.
As regards the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, although the protocol was signed in Montreal in 1975, it was not until 1998 that a sufficient number of countries had ratified it to bring it into force internationally.
Following formal notification by the Polish authorities that the protocol was in force, officials in the department spent considerable time and effort in drafting the two orders which, as noble Lords will see, are both lengthy and complex. We have also taken sufficient time to consult widely on both the form and substance of implementing the legislation. I think I can say to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, with a degree of safety, that such processes take enough time for them to be given due warning of any further amendments, were any to be considered.
As regards the French text, agree with the noble Lord that French is an extremely important language and one of the major European languages. Although I passed O-level French, my French is not of a standard to be able to deal with the nuances and complexities of text written in French and then translated to be legally correct in English.
Montreal Protocol No. 4 states that in the event of any inconsistency from the authentic text in which it was originally drawn up, the French language text shall prevail. For that reason, as was the case in the 1961 Act, it is necessary for the text of the amended convention to be published in French also. The text appearing in the

913
draft order was taken from the original French versions of the convention and the protocol. I am assured it has been checked on two occasions by those whose French is better than either the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, or I would claim to have, and that we believe it to be correct.
I hope I have answered all the questions posed and that noble Lords will agree that it is important for the United Kingdom not to drag our feet but to implement the protocol by means of the two orders which will provide much greater flexibility for air carriers. I hope noble Lords will feel able to give their approval to this necessary measure. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing
8.35 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the refurbishment of houses in poor condition has been taken into account in the Government's plans for additional housing.
The noble Lord said: In asking this Unstarred Question, I declare an interest as president of the National Home Improvement Council. I should like to thank all noble Lords who are to take part in the debate for staying so late to do so. I hope, however, that they will agree that it is appropriate that we should be discussing the question of additional housing at present in view of some important recent developments in government policy.
Ever since the target of 4.4 million new homes by 2011 was announced in 1991 by the previous government, this issue has been a matter of some controversy, particularly with regard to the potential effects on the countryside. The present Government initially adopted that target pending reassessment. It was expected, at one time, that the figure might even increase. In fact, a figure of 5 million new homes was mentioned. In the event, on 29th March the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Government expected that 3.8 million new homes would be needed by the year 2021. He also made it clear that that should no longer be regarded as a target but would be continually reassessed, either upward or downward, as he put it, in the light of changing circumstances. He stated that the Government were departing from the previous "predict and provide" approach to a more flexible "plan, monitor and manage" approach.
Furthermore, it has been re-emphasised that the Government expect 60 per cent. of the new homes to be on brownfield sites selected on the basis on what they describe as a "sequential" procedure. This is set out in the revision of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 issued at the end of last month.
Those are welcome developments, but there would still be substantial building on greenfield sites—no fewer than 1.5 million new homes, on the basis of the latest estimates, and assuming that 60 per cent. are built on brownfield sites.
Although new settlements on greenfield sites amounting to several thousand homes at a time are shown as last in the list of possibilities in the revised document to which I have referred, the Government accept that some could still go ahead.
I have personal experience of one such proposal in the area where I live known as Weald Vale, south-west of Horsham in West Sussex. The proposal, which still has to go through the planning process, is to build a 2,000 house settlement on agricultural land currently owned by Christ's Hospital School. That would totally eliminate—I speak from personal experience—the existing rural environment and require a massive increase in the infrastructure services, including water supplies which have been consistently short over many years.
It is difficult to see how those extra 2,000 people could get the water which a much smaller number of people have been unable to obtain. In my opinion, there would be a great advantage to the local community if such disruptive developments could be avoided.
The question is: can the extra 1.5 million homes currently contemplated for greenfield sites be provided in some other way? I believe that that can be done by a major refurbishment of houses in poor condition and by bringing back into circulation the substantial number of unoccupied premises.
The English House Condition Survey for 1996, which is the last one available, showed that over 14 per cent. or nearly 3 million homes in England are in poor condition. Of those, half are considered unfit in relation to the Government's fitness test. Furthermore, 6.6 per cent. of homes, or 1.3 million houses, which are unfit or in need of major repair are located in what are described as poor living conditions; that is, the environment is poor. According to the survey, it is the people occupying such homes who are most likely to want to move. There are also some 800,000 empty homes.
Those statistics suggest that if there was a major programme to recondition unfit homes or homes requiring major repair, particularly in a poor living environment, and to bring back into use unoccupied homes, the need for constructing 1.5 million homes in rural areas could be virtually eliminated.
Most of the homes requiring major repair are located in the private sector. It therefore follows that measures to stimulate home improvement should be directed at that sector. I wish to suggest four measures in particular to be introduced to that end. The first would be to enable home owners on low incomes to be able more easily to raise small additional mortgages. Under existing legislation, such mortgages, although small, could be costly to set up and take time. Simplified arrangements are needed for mortgages relating specifically to home improvement.
Secondly, those whose limited resources would prevent them from taking up such additional small mortgages should be able to benefit from a wider use of grants. There is a case, I believe, for mandatory grants being reintroduced on a larger scale in place of the

915
present discretionary grants which were introduced a couple of years or so ago, and which are being dispensed on much too small a scale to do the job.
Thirdly, I come to the vexed question of VAT. The fact that no VAT is charged on new construction, but the full amount applies to home improvement, acts as a major disincentive to putting right the poor state of the housing stock. Putting that right would also deter the cowboy builders. I was at a lunch today at which Mr. Nick Raynsford, the Minister responsible for construction, was speaking to the building material producers and emphasised the valuable work he is doing in trying to reign in the cowboy operators. Obviously, if the amount of VAT on home improvement was reduced, those operators would be very much deterred.
In spite of the strong arguments in favour of some alleviation of VAT on home improvement, both this Government and the previous government have been against making any change. However, there is now—I put this to the noble Baroness—a unique opportunity to do something about this. The European Council in Vienna in December 1998, as the Minister is no doubt aware, asked the Commission to prepare a directive to enable the VAT rate to be reduced for certain labour-intensive service industries. I am advised that the home improvement sector would certainly fit into that category. Member states that wish to apply for the reduction in VAT—because this is a Community matter—must make their submission before 1st September 1999. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will be seizing this timely and useful opportunity.
Fourthly, the private rented sector has a particularly high proportion of accommodation in poor condition. Some form of tax incentive to landlords to modernise and improve their properties would be desirable.
In conclusion, I contend that the vigorous application of measures such as those I propose would go a long way to providing the alternative to the 1.5 million new homes which are presently contemplated in greenfield areas. All would benefit from such a development. Those who live in poor housing would see their home conditions improved, and those who wish to live in the countryside would find that it remains unspoilt.
8.46 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too declare an interest; I am chairman of the Housing Corporation, the Government quango that both allocates funding for social housing and also regulates the sector. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for tabling this important Question this evening. The condition of the housing stock is the issue set out in the Question to which I should particularly like to address my remarks this evening.
This problem is wider than simply a housing issue in its implications for people. Poor housing affects people's health and the education of their children. I was interested to read some figures from an organisation that deals with health and the interface with housing. The Department of Health estimated that poor housing costs the health service—and therefore would save the health
916
service if poor housing did not exist—in its treatment of illnesses, from dampness due to condensation, asthma, coughing bouts and a whole range of health issues directly related to poor housing conditions, around £800 million a year. That is more than the Housing Corporation is allocated each year to spend on social housing.
When we examine the area of poor housing, we see that the incidence of accidents such as fires are much higher in that sector. Quite often when we read about a fire and deaths, we see that it is social housing and housing in very poor condition, privately rented stock, in which the people have lived.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, around 1.5 million dwellings in this country are declared unfit for human habitation—that is one in 13 of our total housing stock. It is a problem that occurs particularly in the private rented sector where one in five homes is unfit for human habitation. Thirty-one per cent. of the tenants in those privately rented houses are very poor; 31 per cent. of the private rented sector is in a pretty poor state compared with 8 per cent. of registered social landlord stock. Again, it is the poorest households that suffer—60 per cent. live in unfit homes and half in homes still requiring repair, all on an income of less than £8,000 a year. They are therefore caught in the trap of not being able to do anything to help themselves improve the situation.
When we look at the spread of people living in those poor quality houses, we see that they come from the deprived and vulnerable groups. For instance, 35 per cent. comprise Pakistani and Bangladeshi families; 23 per cent. are black households; and 25 per cent are unemployed. Yet this also affects the young: 29 per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds; and 20 per cent. of people aged 75 years and over. Those people have possibly put their life savings into their homes, the biggest investment that they will ever make. But, at the end of their lives, they just do not have the capital to keep their house in a fit state which would allow them to enjoy a decent standard of living. They almost become prisoners in their own homes because they are in bad housing in poor areas where they are afraid of crime and of their surrounding environment.
In the housing association sector with which I work, the quality of housing is nowhere near as bad as that in the private sector or indeed in the local authority sector. Nevertheless, the corporation is very concerned that, having built decent homes, we need to have the money to maintain them. Under our regulatory process we require housing associations to have regular assessments of the state of their housing stock. They must then transpose that into their business plan to provide the long-term investment to keep that stock in a decent state.
Last year we also took a number of measures to ensure proper maintenance of that stock. Until last year we could not assist people as regards expenditure on reinvestment to maintain any stock built after 1988. The change that we implemented last year meant that we moved from not allowing public subsidy to go into such maintenance and repair to allowing rent surpluses held by housing associations to be used to generate money to invest in the repair and maintenance of stock. That has resulted in something like £80 million to £90 million a

917
year being spent to maintain stock in a good condition. For our part, we now allocate 5 per cent. of our annual development programme to reinvestment. However, having said that, something like 70 per cent. of our total programme is in the whole area of regeneration.
This is quite a controversial issue at present in the sector, especially as regards the north-south divide that we see. In the north, people are leaving their houses; indeed, they are just voting with their feet and walking away. Much depopulation has taken place. As the noble Lord mentioned, we have a lot of empty housing stock. People do not want to go and live in such housing. That, in turn, starts the social decline of empty houses which generates crime, drug dealing and youngsters in cars who cause problems for the community. However, in the south east, there is the problem of there not being enough homes. It is balancing the whole situation which is the big challenge today.
Much of the latter estate is in the local authority area, which for many years has been deprived and starved and unable to spend money on maintenance of such homes. Whereas at one time local authority council housing—like the home in which I was brought up—was something to be proud of, that is no longer the case in too many instances. However, authorities have found a way of dealing with the problem. The previous government introduced the scheme of stock transfer. During the past nine years something like 270,000 homes, which would not have had capital spent on them for improvements, were transferred to housing associations by more than 70 local authorities. As the regulator, we have observed that the private and public funding coming in during the process of transferring all or part of the stock has meant that something like £4.7 billion has been raised and spent on those 270,000 dwellings. Moreover, the process has been speeded up under the present Government. Indeed, in this year alone, I gather that something like 25 local authorities have sought the support of the DETR and the housing Minister to transfer something like 140,000 homes. If that happens, it will allow a lot of private sector funding to regenerate that stock and thereby help keep the people in their homes in that area. So they will not walk away in pursuit of something different elsewhere—perhaps in the area to which the noble Lord referred.
In those transfers, there is no doubting the fact that if we had relief from the 17.5 per cent. VAT which is levied on such stock—as opposed to paying no VAT when one is building on a greenfield site—it would be a very positive move and one which would support the process of using the stock that we have in a far better way than is the case at present. Of course, in those local stock transfers, tenants will have a vote; and rightly so. If they do not want it, it will not happen. Tenants will need to be involved—again, rightly so. After all, their homes are at the centre of their lives.
The poor housing issue is one which I suggest needs to be tackled in the wider sense. It is not just about housing; it is about neighbourhood renewal. We therefore very much welcome the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, with which, I am pleased to say, the corporation is very much involved. It is working
918
towards bringing together a national strategy on the whole issue. It is not intended that it should be applied nationally; indeed, it can only be applied locally. It is intended to give some kind of direction as regards best practice and support so as to force agencies to work together. Again, that will positively help to regenerate the whole area of very poor quality housing, as the noble Lord said. It means that the agencies will have to work together and that they will have to adopt a more pragmatic approach.
We have just concluded a consultation process. At present, we have a very formula-driven process of allocating our funds, but we want to adopt a more pragmatic approach which would be more dependent upon what is needed in the area and upon the quality of the local authority housing strategy. It is no good building houses, as one housing association has done in the north-east, only to find that such houses need to be pulled down when they are less than 10 years old. It is about an inclusive strategy on housing in the area. Certainly the housing Minister, Hilary Armstrong, has been a great help to us in our effort to deal with this very rigid approach. It will be difficult for us because we will have to back our judgments in future rather than bringing out the book and saying "This is the formula, and you have to comply with it". However, we do not mind that at all. Such judgments will be measured against the criteria. We will then stand by that criteria and work in dialogue with the local authorities and our housing associations.
There will be another move in that direction. For example, if one enters an area like Bradford, which I visited a few months ago, one can see that some really good housing has been built. However, in the centre of it all, I saw some private housing owned by Asian families who had put their entire investment into those homes. But those homes are worth less today than when they were bought. So they could not afford to move. Nevertheless, they needed to move for the benefit of the area and indeed for their own benefit. It is to be hoped that our new policy will help to give some relief in that area and that it will step into the private sector where such assistance is needed, provided agreement can be reached with all the parties.
I should like to welcome the announcement recently made that a Green Paper on housing will be published later this year. I am sure that we all look forward to that with interest and that we will all contribute to it. Certainly the release of capital receipts has made a tremendous difference in the area. People are now putting policies together which are changing the whole of their communities. Under the new deal for communities, £800 million will be available in the first year. That is an enormous encouragement to the whole sector. Moreover, for our part, we also had good news this year. For the first time for a number of years our annual funding from the taxpayer through the Government was not reduced. That is very good news, but we are working very hard to meet this new modern agenda.
I should like to point out to my noble friend the Minister that when—and not if—we meet it, we will be back to ensure that that grant starts to go up. We will

919
be able to prove that the work which is being done is actually helping to improve people's lives; indeed, not just their houses but their whole communities. We shall be sure to work in the knowledge that it is a community-based approach and that it is not just the corporation, the Government or the local authority. In other words, it has to be all of the agencies in the area. I suggest that it has to he about maximising the money that we can obtain from the private sector. It will be a very good move.
I started with some very depressing facts. It is not within my nature to be pessimistic; indeed, I am not so on this issue. I am very optimistic. I should like to end on a more positive note and concentrate on the benefits that can be yielded. I am sure that there is no noble Lord in this House who has not heard about the Holly Street development in Hackney. I take it as my closing example, but not to the exclusion of other areas in the country which we have observed through the programmes which are now available. Of course, the Holly Street programme was funded by the single regeneration budget introduced by the previous government. We are now seeing the benefits of that provision in the Hackney area. Tenants in that development have told me that they are happy with their housing. National Health Service staff estimate that there has been a fall of one-third in demand from those tenants for National Health services. Tenants have made fewer visits to their GPs and to hospitals. Tenants have also told me there have been reductions in truancy and in crime, and that drug-pushing in the area has been almost eliminated. That community formerly had been extremely deprived. There are other such success stories throughout the country. However, there is still much to be done as regards tackling social exclusion in this area.
On Monday night I invited the board members of a housing association from Devon to the House to talk to them about the housing provision in their area. A lady board member is a tenant in a development in Plymouth. She told me that she had "lost" her 16 year-old son—although he is still alive—because he had been sucked into the drugs culture on the estate where she lives. She said that she was determined that that would not happen to another family. She and the other women in the area are angry about the situation and they are starting to turn that estate around. My corporation will help to fund their efforts.
I have been the chairman of the Housing Corporation for just over a year. At the corporation's recent conference I must have spoken with some feeling because a housing association chief executive approached me and said, "Brenda, you have obviously joined our housing campaign". I replied, "Oh, no, I have not joined your housing campaign; as far as I am concerned, this is a crusade".
9.1 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot speak with the experience and expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has taken forward the baton from his noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who introduced a similar debate on 26th October last year.
920
In debating this issue of the housing stock, I remember fondly the late Lord Dean of Beswick, whom I know we all miss, who campaigned long and hard for improvements in the British housing stock. I entirely endorse the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that refurbishing houses in poor condition and rebuilding the inner cities should be the Government's priority before considering using greenbelt land. Of course, that begs the question of the choice between allowing urban sprawl or instituting positive planning for urban renewal.
The recently published Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on housing clearly underlined the Government's sequential approach to planning for housing and shows the Government's commitment to ensuring that local councils should develop brownfield land and refurbish existing property before releasing greenfield land for housing development. I have no doubt that the Government are making all the right noises about their commitment to curb greenbelt building.
However, the House Builders Federation, which I understand represents 80 per cent. of builders, has pointed out that brownfield sites are often not conveniently distributed across Britain. In many counties where there is highest demand, there is little vacant land. Furthermore, many people do not want to live in the inner cities. The reality is that although the Government are doing everything they can to rebuild and to assist in refurbishing the inner cities, they cannot dictate either people's lifestyles or where they want to live. That is why the focus on refurbishing houses in poor condition—the focus of this debate—should seek to promote improved lifestyles. The examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, show clearly how an improvement in lifestyle can improve the whole ethos of a community. To achieve maximum effect. refurbishment must constitute improved quality both as regards development and design, with better layouts and a wider choice of sizes and types of houses.
It is vital that areas of urban regeneration are adequately serviced, with shops, supermarkets and transport services, as well as, of course, with factories and local employment, and community and leisure centres, particularly for the young.
It has been suggested that where properties and estates are beyond salvage and refurbishment, the Government should consider ways in which National Lottery cash can be used to turn razed estates into parks or playgrounds. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, drew attention to last year's report of the Prime Minister's Social Exclusion Unit which detailed the horrors of life on the worst estates. It pointed out that the 44 most deprived areas of England have far higher rates of mortality, illiteracy and unemployment than the rest of the country. The housing Minister, Hilary Armstrong, has often stated that access to decent housing is a basic requirement of life. It is encouraging to note that the Government have made substantial provision for investing in modernising the housing stock, especially as regards urgently needed repairs.

921
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as president of the National Home Improvement Council, is well qualified to comment on the quality of England's housing stock. I was a little alarmed to note, when I read the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the noble Lord said he felt that there had been no improvement in the quality of the housing stock.
It is a well-known fact, endorsed by the House Builders Federation, that singles comprise 80 per cent. of housing demand for a variety of reasons, including high divorce rates and the rising number of pensioner households. That implies that there will be more need for flats and smaller houses and that there will not necessarily be a need for more land, but rather an improvement in the quality of accommodation.
I have read estimates of almost 800,000 empty dwellings in England and Wales alone which, in theory, would take much of the strain from the housing queue dominated by single people. A recent analysis in the Guardian on housing policy revealed that the extent of derelict land in our towns and cities has grown to an area almost twice the size of Bristol. Furthermore, more and more urban land is becoming derelict each year than is being reclaimed.
A housing research summary released last year by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions showed that successive housing condition surveys reveal that the private rented sector is always in worse condition than other sectors.
I do not want to ramble on. I certainly support the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that the Government should consider more incentives and, perhaps, VAT exemptions for refurbishment. There is no doubt that it will take many years, if not many decades, to transform Britain's so-called "sink estates" into areas where people would want to live. We can only hope that vision of the planning Minister, Richard Caborn, of achieving,
"nothing less than an urban renaissance",
will be a reality and not just a pipedream.
9.9 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for asking his Question this evening. Like the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, I defer to the great experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
I heartily endorse the Government's determination to make use of brownfield sites, as other noble Lords have said. However, there is one caveat which I enter on that score. The housing market is not uniform. People will buy a house on an estate on a greenfield site, as the noble Lord has just said, in the belief that they are "going to live in the country". As someone raised, if not born, in the countryside, I know only too well the fallacy of that assumption.
I give a particular instance from my own experience. A planning application that was passed a long time ago for about 300 houses between the villages of Bussage and Eastcombe in Gloucestershire in the 1980s resulted in a huge estate which had no shops, no proper
922
amenities and no infrastructure. The result was between 1,000 and 1,500 people who had to commute to work through tiny villages and up very steep Cotswold hills to reach the centres of employment. Those houses were advertised on Paddington station to people who were already commuting to London from Cheltenham, Gloucester, Stroud and Swindon. The effect of that development was to bring the problems of suburbia to the countryside.
The point is that the purchasers of those houses would have been unlikely to buy houses on land which was part of a large derelict former industrial site, even though the transport links may have been better than they were in the Cotswold countryside.
In order to make a success of developing brownfield sites, I urge the Government to ensure that the whole amenity aspect of the development is taken into account so that they can provide the right kind of housing and encourage people who may not otherwise have lived in an inner-city or city area to do so.
The conditions in the 1996 English house condition survey make depressing reading. I cannot read my notes. I must put my glasses on. I am sorry, I still cannot read my writing.
The private rented sector remains a serious concern, with one in five dwellings requiring expenditure of £6,000 to remedy problems, and in total private landlords needed to spend at least £2.5 billion. Although the rate of unfitness was lower at 6 per cent, the majority of unfit dwellings were owner-occupied, some 830,000 out of 1.5 million, or 55 per cent. of the total. The average cost of dealing with unfitness in the owner-occupied sector was £5,500 and the total bill was £4.5 billion, so we are talking about a lot of money.
About 300,000 dwellings owned by local authorities or housing associations were unfit, with a bill of just over £1 billion to tackle the problem. Bringing unfitness and more minor disrepair together and adding in households in dwellings requiring essential modernisation to kitchen, electrical fittings or heating suggests that almost 2.8 million households, 14 per cent. of the total, were living in what is defined as poor housing in 1996. As one might expect, there is a strong association, as other noble Lords have pointed out, between low income and poor housing, but this information was not included in the 1996 report.
Groups which were more likely to live in poor housing included households where the head was unemployed; a student or in part-time work; lone parent households; households in which the members were under 60 but with a long-term sick or disabled person present. As other noble Lords have mentioned, households with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin were particularly badly off, as were younger households of people aged between 16 and 24, especially those living in private rented accommodation, and older people living alone, particularly in households headed by someone over 75 years old.
Overall, levels of unfitness and disrepair remained static over the 1991 to 1996 period. This suggests that the situation is not improving. The general picture conceals some important variations. The first of these is

923
that the dwelling condition varies over time depending on how much has recently been invested in repairs and maintenance, so some backlog of disrepair is to be expected at any one time. Worryingly, however, some two-thirds of dwellings which were unfit were also unfit at the time of the previous survey in 1991. This suggests that a substantial pool of dwellings is being left behind in the housing market and that in many cases people are having to endure poor living conditions for an extended period.
Next, conditions in the private rented sector improved relative to other kinds of tenure, but this came about more from the movement of newer dwellings into the private rented sector than from investment by landlords in the private housing stock. The problem of getting private landlords to keep their dwellings in good repair remains to be resolved.
Thirdly, in the owner-occupied sector there was a rise in levels of unfitness in houses built between the two world wars, which is a cause for concern in the future as these dwellings age further. One way to improve the situation would be to make better use of public resources by replacing the current small number of large capital grants to owners by means tested assistance, with loan interest charges on borrowing for specific repair works. Where the owner could not obtain access to a loan because of limited equity, some form of loan could be offered which would eventually produce a return to the state when the dwelling was sold or the owner's position improved or when the improved dwelling rose in value. These resources could in turn be recycled into further investment in improvement.
Finally, I should like to pick up the point which my noble friend and the other two noble Lords who have spoken mentioned, which is about the Government's opportunity to submit an application to be able to apply a lower rate of VAT on, and I quote, "certain labour intensive industries". The reason why I found this fascinating is that I have done some research, ably assisted by the very helpful researchers in the House of Lords Library. Alerted by a friend of mine, Mr. Farel Bradbury, who takes an interest in such matters—I mention this because unemployment is a very important factor in people not being able to afford better housing—I asked the Library to let me have the unemployment figures for the members of the European Union since before they joined and adopted VAT. It is crystal clear that when you set the unemployment figures for Japan and the United States as a control (they do not have VAT) at the date coincident with the adoption of VAT by the European Union countries, unemployment starts to rise and continues to rise; whereas in the other countries it rises and falls.
What the European Union has done in suggesting that certain labour-intensive industries should have a lower rate of VAT applied to them is to admit that VAT works as a tax on labour, on production. I very much hope that the Government will take the opportunity suggested by my noble friend, as it would help to reduce the burden of VAT.
924
My noble friend has done us good service in asking the Government this important Question. There are many things that the Government can do to improve the situation. I wish them well if they are energetic about this matter.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I must declare an interest as an Essex landowner. I shall return to that. Perhaps I may be forgiven for borrowing a farming cliché to begin my remarks. It is one which the Government Chief Whip, who is sitting opposite, will recognise. There is only one thing worse than a surplus of food, and that is a shortage. So it is with housing.
Returning to the subject of Essex, when I was first elected to Essex County Council, the county had just lost all its London boroughs with the creation of the GLC. The population was just under 1 million. Twenty-eight years later, when I ceased to be directly involved, the population was over 1.55 million. So I know a great deal about the problems of providing houses for an increasing population and the planning process. Living with that sort of ride in the local authority world is quite exciting. The point must be made that one is not merely providing houses but roads, schools, hospitals and everything else that makes a community work. Therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, pointed out, we cannot discuss housing in isolation. Dealing with problem housing areas is not simply a matter of providing housing; it involves a whole range of other facilities and altering the approach within the community.
A point that impressed me was the figure given by the noble Baroness, which I did not have, for the cost to the health service of £800 million per annum as a result of health problems such as asthma that arise in poor areas. The 1996 House Building Survey indicates that to put houses that are presently unfit into "a fit state" applying the standard in Section 604 of the Local Government and Housing Act would cost £8 billion. That is only 10 years' purchase in terms of cost to the health service. In public investment terms that is a pretty good rate of return. Clearly the matter ought to have some priority.
The condition of housing and occupation are not necessarily the same thing. It is true that the 1996 survey indicated that 1½ million homes were unfit according to the housing Act definition, but only 798,000 houses—about half—were unoccupied. We must face the fact that there always will be a large number of unoccupied houses. The average life of a tenancy may be 20-plus years, but if my memory is correct on the statistics the average life of a mortgage is only 11 years. That being so, it suggests that there will always be a considerable pool of houses in what might be termed the turnover phase. We should be grateful for that because it is, among other things, a sign of a dynamic and active economy. That is one aspect of the problem.
Furthermore, the "fitness" of houses may change. Using the same 1996 survey, it is interesting to note that of the dwellings that were unfit in 1991, when the previous survey was conducted, half a million had been

925
made fit, so progress had clearly been made. The tragedy was that half a million had become unfit, and so the total did not change. However, I do not think we should become depressed about the situation. Successful action is taking place, but, unfortunately, people's circumstances change, social attitudes in areas change and economic circumstances in communities change. All those pressures can create immense problems.
We have talked a great deal tonight about the physical problems of houses, but the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—for which I am extremely grateful to him—refers to the extent to which the refurbishment of houses has been taken into account in the Government's plans for additional housing. A point which has not yet been made in relation to that illustrates the relentless pressure, faced by the community at large, which created the dreadful figures—if dreadful they be.
Among the statistics that I dug out for this debate were some on household size. In 1971, which was after I started in local government, the average household size was 2.91 people. By 1996 that figure had fallen to 2.43 and it continues to fall. Over that same period, the number of single-person households rose from 17 per cent. to 27 per cent. of the total and the population involved rose from 6 per cent. to 11 per cent. of the total population. In fact, what we are measuring here is, among other things, the breakdown of the family and family life. There are thus many aspects to this problem. Although it may be true that a single person in a single-person dwelling may require marginally less land for that dwelling, it is also a fact that space is still needed for educational, social, recreational and transport purposes. Therefore, the saving in land as household size decreases is probably zero, if not negative. People need space other than just cubic capacity within brick walls.
There is no easy answer to this situation. We shall be obliged to keep working at it for a long time. I do not think that we should expect a simple conclusion. What can be said is that progress is being made and will continue to be made. The Government's ambition to put more housing on brownfield sites is thoroughly worthy, subject only to two comments. First, brownfield sites can be used only once and eventually they run out. Secondly, the greatest difficulty is that the south-east of England, where there is something like 26 per cent. of total housing demand, has, for better or worse, only about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. of the brownfield sites. That mismatch will cause problems.
I have addressed the reasons why there are very large figures for increased housing demand. That is an unfortunate pressure to which we must accede. I suspect that, because of the situation in the South East, that pressure will keep planners in counties such as Essex, Kent, Hertfordshire, Berkshire, Sussex and Surrey busy—not to say spinning like tops—for many years to come.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to examine the Government's actions to improve the quality of the housing stock. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for giving me the opportunity to do this. Along with the changes that we are implementing in the planning system, action will undoubtedly help to meet future housing need while reducing the pressure for new development. A severe lack of resources in the past led to poor condition housing. Under-investment in the past has contributed to a £10 billion backlog of repair work in the local authority stock alone. Substantial investment in renovation of the housing stock is a top priority for this Government. For that reason, we are making available an additional £5 billion for investment in housing over the lifetime of this Parliament, most of the extra money being re-routed through local authorities. They are expected to direct resources mainly towards improving their own stock. The resources made available in 1997–98 and 1998–99 through our Capital Receipts Initiative have already delivered improvements to around 300,000 homes. We expect improvements to be delivered in a further 1.5 million council homes over the next three years. However, authorities will have scope to use the extra resources to boost their existing programmes for renovating private sector housing and providing new social housing where this reflects the priorities in local housing strategies.
Several noble Lords have referred to private sector renewal. The majority of housing in England is privately owned. Private housing is first and foremost a private asset and responsibility for repair and maintenance must rest with owners. That is why the Government's policies for owner occupied housing encourage sustainable home ownership. But, as several noble Lords have said, not everyone is able to carry out essential repair work on his or her own home, and renovation grants continue to be available to help those most in need. In 1989–99 and 1999–2000 we have allocated a total of £331 million to local authorities in England for private sector renewal, with a separate allocation for facilities to meet the needs of those with disabilities. We expect this to support about £552 million-worth of expenditure on private sector renewal. We hope and believe that this will help renovate in excess of 100,000 homes. That is additional to the far greater amount of renovation and maintenance work carried out by home owners and landlords without recourse to public funds. We have also allocated an additional £4.2 million for the Home Improvement Agency programme over the next three years.
This debate has necessarily referred to the issue of planning for housing. Little more than a year ago we made two firm commitments, both of which will have a positive impact on the level of empty homes and houses in poor condition. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to that matter in detail and drew on his personal knowledge and experience. First, we said that we would introduce new planning guidance to ensure the use of previously developed land and existing buildings for housing before building on greenfields. Secondly, as

927
noble Lords are aware, we set a recycling target of 60 per cent. and made a commitment to,
"break the mould of predict and provide",
in planning for housing. We have delivered on both those commitments. The new consultation PPG3 has set the scene on how authorities should plan for housing, and it represents, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, a radical departure from the previous guidance.
Our message to local authorities is that when they draw up their development plans and decide planning applications—I know the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, would not expect a specific comment on a current planning application—they make the best use of existing housing and previously developed sites. We are asking local councils to maintain a five-year supply of housing rather than land as at present. That, too, is a significant departure. It means a much closer integration of housing and planning policies, and consequently that authorities will be making better use of the existing stock, including empty homes. The message we keep giving to planners is that we want them to be more pro-active and creative in their thinking. In this way we can completely revolutionise the way we plan for housing need.
Our second commitment was referred to on 29th March by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, when he announced the revised household projections, replacing those announced in 1995. Traditionally, those demographic details have been a major determinant in assessing the future housing requirements. The Deputy Prime Minister has now made it clear that the Government do not regard the projections as forecasts or predictions of the number of households likely to form. The old policy of "predict and provide" favoured by the former government is dead. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, summed it up well by referring to planning, monitoring and managing. It is still the case that the household projections should be taken into account in assessing a region's housing needs, but other factors should equally be taken into account. Regional planning bodies' calculations are now required to take far more account of the level of existing housing which might be available, in particular housing that is empty and substandard.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord St. John of Bletso, among others referred to the important issue of looking carefully at empty homes. Empty property has a vital role to play in our new approach to planning for housing. We cannot afford to overlook the opportunities—I refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—which the 230,000 long-standing empty homes in the private sector can offer as an alternative to new development on greenfield land. Many of these properties are in poor condition and in need of renovation before they could be put back into use. Some may be in areas where there is a low demand for housing. I note the point again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, about the variation in housing demand in different parts of the country.
If it were a different debate, I could refer to a failure over the past two decades to consider the need for a more equal distribution of economic development across
928
the country as a whole and our belief that the new regional development agencies will contribute to a more even spread given that there are areas of the country other than the south-east. Many of those who contributed to the housing pressure in the south-east did so because they felt that that was the only area where they could gain employment. I recognise that that is a simple analysis, but I am convinced that it is part of the issue.
We welcome the progress made by some 200 local authorities which have an empty property strategy and the role that the empty homes agency plays by assisting authorities to set up those strategies. The extra resources we are making available for housing give local authorities scope for increased action in this area.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is funding the empty homes agency to work closely with local authorities to bring more redundant commercial property into residential use and to make better use of empty properties in rural areas. Those areas are faced with real difficulties in meeting need, particularly affordable housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about the wider use of grants and about loans and equity. Discretionary grants enable local authorities to make decisions at local level as to how and where available resources can be used to best effect, including directing resources to an area-based activity in order to tackle concentrations of poor housing and benefit the wider community. It is important to say that there is a constant tension between the pressure to prescribe and ring-fence funding to local authorities and the recognition that there must be flexibility in meeting the needs identified by noble Lords.
The important issue of the private-rented sector was raised by my noble friend Lady Dean and the noble Lord, Lord McNair. I sympathise with his glasses problem. I had the same difficulty the first time I answered a Question at the Dispatch Box during Question Time.
The housing market needs to operate in the interests of all and we need to work very hard. During previous debates, a particular issue was raised regarding housing in multiple occupation. That is an area in which we must continue to press for improvement in conditions. We are looking at arrangements for enforcing decent physical standards in the private sector in the current review of housing fitness standards. Related proposals from the Law Commission are under study. The Government are also concerned about the amount of housing benefit being paid to bad landlords of substandard properties. That is one of the many issues being examined with regard to the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about household growth projections. The latest figures showed the number of new households projected to form in England between 1996 and 2021 to be about 3.8 million, compared with the 4.4 million projected for the 25-year period ending in 2016. These projections are not forecasts, estimates or predictions. They are based entirely on what might be expected to occur if trends continue. They are one of the range of factors which

929
should be taken equally into account by the regional conferences in making decisions about their housing applications. It is for the conferences and the panel to take a realistic and responsible view.
Noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord McNair and Lord St. John of Bletso, raised the issue of VAT on housing repairs. I confirm that we are examining the anomaly whereby VAT is charged at 17.5 per cent. on conversions, but new build is zero rated. We understand the arguments that are being put forward about unifying VAT rates and recognise that it could help in the efforts to tackle cowboy builders.
There are other economic and technical points to be considered, such as the impact on house prices and the issue of legality. We are aware that consideration of the current EU law is under way. However, I must stress that any changes in the VAT regime are ultimately a decision for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We must make the best use of resources to regenerate rundown areas of housing, whether social housing or privately owned. Noble Lords have referred to regeneration and the circumstances of those living in the poorest housing and the worst neighbourhoods. My noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde spoke of her specialist experience and knowledge in this field. The social exclusion work and the 18 action teams set up so far are a way of bringing in experts to co-ordinate a huge cross-departmental effort to tackle some of the enormous problems. There is more than £2.3 billion available for a re-focused single regeneration budget.
930
Eighty per cent. of the new resources will be concentrated on major regeneration schemes in the most deprived areas. The remaining 20 per cent. of the SRB resources will fund schemes tackling small pockets of deprivation outside those most deprived areas.
My noble friend also referred to the diversity of need for social housing and the importance of recognising the growing number of difficult-to-let properties in some areas where renovation may meet housing need more effectively than new build. It is so important that we all work together in partnership; not only that local authorities and registered social landlords work in partnership, but that the local authority and the community as a whole work to tackle the wider questions to which she referred.
We welcome the important fact that the Housing Corporation and registered social landlords are committed to refurbishment and housing regeneration.
It is impossible for me to reply to the many detailed points raised in such a wide-ranging debate in such a short time. We believe that we should ensure high levels of urban amenity to halt the exodus to the countryside, and we therefore await with eager anticipation the report from my noble friend Lord Rogers.
The debate has highlighted the importance of housing. From my experience of having worked in local government, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, any commitment to family life and to improving opportunities, whether for health, education or the life prospects of people is important but, housing is the first and crucial issue.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  Regional Development Agencies: Strategies
  Regional Development Agencies: Strategies
  Reservists: Attributable Benefits Scheme
  Reservists: Attributable Benefits Scheme
  Miss Lindis Percy
  Miss Lindis Percy
  Transsexuals: Legal Status
  Transsexuals: Legal Status
  Christmas Day: Control of Shop Opening
  Christmas Day: Control of Shop Opening
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Salvador Allende
  Salvador Allende
  Extradition Refusals
  Extradition Refusals
  Pinochet Case: Lord Lamont's Questions
  Pinochet Case: Lord Lamont's Questions
  "Sandwich" Students: Pay
  "Sandwich" Students: Pay