Sitting of 22 April 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What money is being made available to improve flood defences. [80342]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Following the comprehensive spending review, the Ministry is making £230 million of funding available over the next three years for flood defence and coast protection capital works. This represents an increase of £23 million over previous plans.
  Mr. Wright: I welcome the Government's initiative in providing increased funding in this important area. Perhaps the Minister recalls his visit to my constituency and to Scratby and the California Cliffs area, where he witnessed the benefits provided by the extra money spent on coastal defence in that region. We will endeavour to extend that work further south this summer to Caister-on-Sea. Will the Minister outline the progress that is being made with the Bye report, which was commissioned after the Northampton floods last year?
  Mr. Morley: I enjoyed my visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. It was useful to see the coastal problems at first hand and to consider how the Ministry can work with local authorities to address them. I am pleased to report to the House that substantial progress has been made with the Bye report. We are on target in terms of the objectives agreed with the Environment Agency in relation to reviewing flood warning dissemination and flood risk planning.
  Yesterday I had a constructive meeting with the Local Government Association, the Association of Drainage Authorities and the Environment Agency to agree high-level targets for achieving progress in reviewing flood defence procedures. Those targets were agreed, and we are on course to review flood defence and coastal protection provisions in this country.
  Mr. John Greenway: I thank the Minister for the interest that he has shown in the recent flooding
  1028
  in the Derwent valley, particularly in Malton and Norton in my constituency. I thank the Minister for his visit to my area, which was much appreciated. He may be surprised to learn that another flood warning was issued last night—if this keeps up, we will be applying for fishing quotas.
  On a serious note, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that many people were disappointed by his decision yesterday not to allow a public inquiry,even though I understand the reasons for that decision. Will the Minister confirm today that the integrated review that he has mentioned will take place and will provide a mechanism to deal independently, within the review process, with genuine concerns about drainage in the Derwent basin and allegations that flood defences were not maintained? Will some of the money that the Minister has announced to the House today be made available for strengthening flood defences in the Derwent valley region?
  Mr. Morley: It was a useful meeting. I appreciated the assistance of the hon. Gentleman when I visited his constituency and talked to those who had been affected. I pay tribute to the emergency services, the local council and the Environment Agency, which worked around the clock dealing with the emergency at Malton and in other parts of the region.
  I considered carefully the request for a public inquiry into the Malton floods, and I understand the reasonable points that the hon. Gentleman makes. The difficulty with public inquiries is that they deflect time and resources that could be used to rectify the problems. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are reviewing the national flood warning system. As to problems in Malton, if the hon. Gentleman considers it appropriate, I shall ensure that his constituents are able to feed through issues to the national review. If there are lessons to be learned from Malton and improvements to be made, they will be identified in the overall review.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the interest that the Minister has taken in flooding, particularly the Easter floods last year. He will be aware that the floods on Christmas day and on the day after Boxing day also affected many homes in Sileby in my constituency—after we were told that floods like those at Easter occurred only once every hundred years. I welcome the extra money, but the schemes proposed to alleviate future flooding problems will cost £4 million or £5 million.
  Is the Minister aware of the problems faced by smaller local authorities such as Charnwood and Melton, which have yearly budgets of only £5 million? Will the Minister consider providing assistance to those authorities in Leicestershire in order to alleviate those recurring problems? Every time it rains, many residents fear that their houses will be flooded again.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend has been very active in this area on behalf of his constituents. Smaller local authorities face particular problems, especially where there are non-mains water courses and when different agencies have different responsibilities. I am prepared to look sympathetically at my hon. Friend's request regarding the overall strategy and the way in which we prioritise schemes.

  Irish Sea (CFP)
  Mr. Michael Jack: If he will make a statement on the factors relating to the common fisheries policy which currently affect fishing opportunities in the Irish sea. [80343]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government will continue to press for improvements to the common fisheries policy to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks in the Irish sea and elsewhere.
  Mr. Jack: Does the Minister agree that the Irish sea presents an opportunity for the creation of a new mechanism to help fishermen have more input into and control over their future opportunities? Will he consider setting up a fisheries forum for the Irish sea area, comprising Government and industry representatives from Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, to formulate a report on fishing possibilities and management in that area which could go to the Fisheries Council in December further to inform its decision making?
  Mr. Morley: That is a very constructive suggestion. A number of regional committees have already been set up, and the Government are keen to develop them. There is merit in the concept of a forum to consider Irish sea management. Other member states traditionally have fishing interests in the Irish sea, and we must bear those in mind. Nevertheless, those are measures in which we can involve the fishing industry and develop a more regional dimension of fisheries management, which will be welcomed not only by the industry and by this country but by other European Union countries. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly more rational than some of those made by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome, as I do, the late conversion of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to a more positive involvement in fisheries policy.
  In developing a regional method of organising fisheries, will my hon. Friend consider using designated ports such as Fleetwood as regional centres for co-ordinating such a strategy, so that fishermen will have a genuine say in the development of fisheries policy?
  Mr. Morley: I shall consider that. I know that my hon. Friend, her local authority, Associated British Ports and the local fishermen have been campaigning hard to make Fleetwood a centre of excellence for fishing port facilities in the Irish sea, and there are good arguments for doing so. On designated ports, fishing vessels have been landing at Liverpool, but it would surely be more logical for them to land at a dedicated fishing port where there are market and support facilities.
  I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Fleetwood has a great deal to offer the fishing industry and has certainly been progressive in the way that it has marketed and projected itself.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Welcome though the Minister's response might be in some respects, his position on fisheries policy would carry a little more credibility if he had not already made it clear that he is not even discussing a zonal plan with his opposite numbers in Europe. He believes that the industry should develop that plan.
  Is not national control the key issue? The Conservative party has pledged to secure the return of national control, whereas the hon. Gentleman has pledged to ensure that control remains in Brussels. Does not he ever feel slightly ill at ease in having nailed his colours so firmly to the mast of common fisheries policy, with minor tinkering here and there, when that policy has failed on conservation and has failed this country?
  Mr. Morley: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's comments is that we do not know exactly what the Conservative party means by a return of national control. We have no idea how the Conservatives intend to achieve it. To make any progress, they would need the support of the European Union, and their past record reveals that they made no progress whatever in getting the beef ban lifted or dealing with quota hoppers.
  It is clear to us that some of our current problems, including charges in slaughterhouses, which were agreed under the previous Administration, and the ending of duty free, are due to the fact that the European Union took no notice of the Conservative party because of its negative, destructive and divided attitude to Europe. There is no possibility of the Conservatives achieving their policy unless they are prepared to say that they would leave the EU altogether, because that would be the consequence of their position. They ought to be honest and say where they stand on that point.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I remind my hon. Friend that a Conservative Government betrayed our fisheries and fishing communities in their eagerness to join the then European Economic Community. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has come up with a good idea for the management of Irish sea fisheries. I hope that the issue is dealt with at the Council of the Isles when it gets under way. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to manage those fishing stocks on a regional basis, with preferences for our local fishermen. Nomadic fishermen from France, Spain and elsewhere should be given the bum's rush.
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is quite right. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is a former fisheries Minister, which is why he has had no truck with the nonsense that we have just heard expressed from the Opposition Front Bench. What is being urged by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is just not achievable. However, there is certainly a strong case for reform of the common fisheries policy, and the right hon. Gentleman has made some sensible suggestions for doing that, as has my hon. Friend. Those are the sort of issues on which I think we can make progress. We certainly cannot make progress with a xenophobic position that would result in complete withdrawal from the European Union.

  Food Hygiene and Animal Welfare
  Mr. Tim Loughton: What steps he is taking to ensure that British farmers compete on even terms with countries that operate to lower food hygiene and animal welfare standards. [80344]
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Food imports from third counties must meet the same or equivalent hygiene standards as food produced within the European Union. Common minimum EU welfare standards for farm animals come into effect at the end of this year. There is no animal welfare component to the World Trade Organisation agreements. WTO rules do not therefore allow discrimination against third country imports on animal welfare grounds.
  Mr. Loughton: So much for common minimum standards. After all the talk about animal welfare standards before the election, when will the Minister put his money where his mouth is and at least test the water by imposing a ban on the import of animal products that do not match up to the rigorous food hygiene and animal welfare standards that we demand and expect of farmers in this country?
  Mr. Brown: There are already effective laws in place to protect British consumers on food hygiene and food safety issues. I cannot unilaterally introduce rules on animal welfare restrictions—
  Mr. Loughton: Why not?
  Mr. Brown: Because it would be illegal to do so. We debated this matter at some length last night, when the point made by the hon. Gentleman was advanced from the Opposition Front Bench. The simple response is this: it is illegal to do as he asks.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: While I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said, we have always had problems with imports from some third countries outside the European Union. Do we not have to find some way within the World Trade Organisation of taking steps to ensure that there are better welfare and hygiene standards in other countries from which we import via some EU member states?
  Mr. Brown: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I have already said at the Council of Ministers, and repeated in last night's debate, that I am seeking an animal welfare component to the WTO rules as they apply to agriculture.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Can the Minister be more specific when he says that he is seeking an animal welfare component? Who is seeking that on behalf of the Government? Is it the right hon. Gentleman? Is the Chancellor backing the proposal? What active steps are the Government taking?
  Will the Minister acknowledge that this is not only an outside-the-European-Union issue? We know for certain that there are standards in other member states that do not meet those that we apply to ourselves. We must be robust
  1032
  about this. I return, therefore, to the issue that I raised with the Minister last night. Rather than waiting for ever and a day for Europe to get its act together on labelling, could the Government not take pre-emptive action in a domestic context and be far more forward thinking on accurate labelling where animal welfare standards are concerned?
  Mr. Brown: The farm assured scheme, which is in place, is a labelling scheme. There is a pigmeat welfare component to the scheme. I urge the House to get behind that scheme and to support it in the marketplace. That is where we shall get a premium for the United Kingdom pig industry.
  The question of how to negotiate the welfare component to the WTO agreements is being discussed among Ministers at European Union level. Agriculture Ministers have already had one session on the issue. The Government are preparing their own stance. I shall have some input, as will other Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  Mr. David Drew: Would my right hon. Friend agree that at the very time our major competitors are beginning to become increasingly interested in welfare and environmental standards—especially the Danes, the Dutch and the French—we would send just the wrong signal if we started lowering ours?
  Mr. Brown: No one is advocating lowering the standards. Indeed, consumers are looking for proper information—not only about food standards, but about ethical methods of production—so that they can consume in a discerning way. People look for the animal welfare component in the marketplace. I think that they are right to do so, and the Government should stand their corner.
  Mr. William Thompson: Government policy seems to be based on the proposition that if goods are of better quality and produced to higher welfare standards, British consumers will buy them. What assessment has been made to prove that proposition correct? Is it not a fact that people may buy on the basis of price rather than of quality?
  Mr. Brown: At least in part because of the work that I have undertaken with the Meat and Livestock Commission, we have secured a premium for United Kingdom pigmeat, for example, in the marketplace. The prices are about 20 or 25 per cent. higher than the European Union average in the UK market at the moment, and it is up to all of us to work hard to ensure that we are able to maintain that price differential, which advantages producers. My effort is directed to getting the industry back to profitability so that producers can face the future with some certainty. I will be in Northern Ireland tomorrow and hope to have an opportunity to discuss those matters with Northern Ireland farm leaders.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit cheeky of the Tories to come into the Chamber and apparently show concern for food safety when their policies created, one after the other, the food scandals that lowered confidence in British food to such an extent that we cannot compete in our own country, never mind outside it? I congratulate him on the

  1033
  work that he is putting in to rebuild confidence in British food so that we in the United Kingdom can believe in it and, more important, so that we can again export it abroad.
  Mr. Brown: The only way through those issues is to work in co-operation and partnership with our partners in the European Union. We have made substantial progress so far. There is much more to be done. I commend to the House the United Kingdom's policy of constructive engagement with our European partners, and absolutely reject the policies that were pursued by the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Minister give wholehearted support to any efforts made by the European Commission to block the payment by the French Government of illegal subsidies to French pig farmers who do not meet the same high animal welfare standards as British pig farmers observe?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must give me his evidence of illegal payments by any other national Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, come on."] He is making the allegation, and it is incumbent on him to substantiate it. I invite him to give me his evidence; if it is hard evidence of illegal activities within the EU, I will take it up at once with the Commission. I cannot assert higher UK animal welfare standards where the EU has already legislated for its own common standards. The Commission will defend EU common standards, not higher standards asserted by the UK Parliament—under the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: If he will make a statement on his proposals for the reform of the food hygiene regulations. [80345]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have made no proposals for reform of food hygiene regulations. The European Commission—this is a harmonised subject—is expected to make a comprehensive proposal later this year, consolidating existing European Union hygiene legislation. We are fully behind that initiative.
  Mr. Vaz: I welcome the Minister's commitment to toughening up food hygiene regulations. What contribution will the new Food Standards Agency make to improving the food hygiene regulations? Will my hon. Friend undertake to meet my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to explore the role that local authorities have in prosecuting those who breach the regulations?
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the proposed Food Standards Agency. Setting up the agency presents an opportunity for a full review of our own regulations to make sure that they are fair, practical, proportionate and not onerous, and that they underpin our prime public health objective of making sure that our food is safe. Nevertheless, we have the opportunity to consolidate 14 European Union directives in one to achieve better clarity in the regulations, which will be a great advantage.
  1034
  Prosecution policy is a matter for local authorities. We do not order them to prosecute; they have a duty, in policing the food system, to prosecute when they consider that to be the right course.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: When considering the application to food hygiene of fair and proportionate regulations, will the Minister also consider the proposed cost of the Meat Hygiene Service? Will he take into account the position of a constituent of mine, Mr. Joseph Morris of South Kilworth, whose charges will rise fivefold and who will have to employ three inspectors to look after a work force of five? Will he also consider the position of Mr. Marcus Stevens of Ullesthorpe, whose charges will rise by 1,000 per cent.? What does the Minister intend to tell those people, who will be driven out of business? Will he please not blame the last Government? It may have escaped his notice that the present Government have been in power for two years.
  Mr. Rooker: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman give the advice that we suggested about a month ago, and tell his constituents to check the invoices. So far we have proposed no charges and consulted on no charges; no one has had an invoice involving a 1 per cent. increase, a 1,000 per cent. increase or any increase. At present the figures are pure guesstimates, and until the invoices arrive no one can be certain about the truth of the wild allegations made by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: What assessment he has made of the level of enforcement and charging for meat inspection in other European Union countries. [80346]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Information on the level of veterinary inspections in meat plants in other member states was placed in the Library of the House in November last year. Similar information about meat inspection charges will be deposited shortly—and I can reveal that "shortly" means later today.
  Mr. Gill: I welcome last night's announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about matters affecting inspection charges, and his announcement of an investigation of the dynamics of the abattoir industry; but is it not imperative for the Government to find hard evidence proving that other European Union countries are complying with the directives involved?
  May I follow up a point that the Minister made to the Conservative spokesman about the provision of hard evidence? Does he accept the hard evidence—photographic evidence—that I showed Ministers last night, which proves that meat inspection standards simply are not being followed in other countries? Unless and until they are followed, it is grossly unfair for the British industry to go on being pilloried as it feels it is being pilloried now.
  Mr. Rooker: I saw the photographs, but I cannot comment on the details. What I can say is that the information that will be placed in the Library later today—which we have obtained from our own sources abroad, through the embassies—tends to show, in regard to Meat Hygiene Service inspections as with veterinary inspections, that the arrangements for most member states

  1035
  are in line with the relevant directive; but it is not possible to conclude from the information provided that all the rules are being followed. The information that we have obtained will, of course, be given to the European Commission.
  Mr. How Edwards: Last night's announcement is particularly welcome to the farming community in Monmouthshire—especially to those in the small family abattoir in Raglan, run by Bill James, which I was invited to visit last year, where I was heavily lobbied and from which I felt mightily relieved to come away alive.
  Mr. Rooker: I think that, by and large, that was a thank you for my right hon. Friend's announcement. Obviously more decisions must be announced about veterinary and meat inspection charges. Last night's decision related exclusively to the proposal for special risk material charges, which we have said will not be levied or collected during the current financial year.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last night constituted a positive response to the representations of an industry that is under great pressure. Given the pressure that is being imposed on small and medium-sized abattoirs, will the Minister look again at the level of charges? It is spinning out of control, making small and medium-sized abattoirs uncompetitive. There is only one abattoir in my constituency—a large agricultural constituency—whose viability is now in question as a direct result of meat inspection charges. I urge the Minister to look again at the whole system.
  Mr. Rooker: Yes, we look at the system continually, so that Ministers can make considered decisions and announcements. We are duty bound to collect the charges incurred by the Meat Hygiene Service. I completely reject the contention that matters are out of control.
  However, I take the point. There are not that many abattoirs in Wales, although what will be the largest abattoir in Europe is under construction there, so the situation is bound to change. We have not yet announced the proposed charges, on which we are duty bound to consult. We will do that as quickly as possible.

  Farm Diversification
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What steps his Department has taken to assist farmers to diversify their businesses. [80348]
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated under the English objective 5b structural fund programmes. The Ministry has also produced a series of advisory booklets on diversification.
  Mr. Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The work done under objective 5b is very welcome, especially in my area. However, changes in structural funding are on the way. I urge my hon. Friend to do everything in his power, when he talks to colleagues in both Whitehall and
  1036
  Europe, to make sure that the rural communities that rely so much on that help to diversify their business continue to get the assistance in the future. When objective 2 and the rural strand are under consideration, will he ensure that agricultural communities get their fair share of the money that is available?
  Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Objective 5b has been a great success in supporting the rural economy, and in fostering partnership between the public and the private sector and between various rural organisations. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the need to take account of the needs of rural areas in the forthcoming changes to objective 2 funding.
  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained a very good settlement in relation to the Rome agreement. It included objective 1 status for parts of this country, and safety nets for areas which, because of the changes, may lose their assisted area status. Regardless of the type of structural fund regime that is introduced, we want to ensure that it benefits as wide a rural area as possible.
  Mr. James Paice: Many sheep farmers in this country have diversified by developing their own export business. Last night, the Parliamentary Secretary repeated his view that live exports do not help sheep prices, yet in an answer on 5 March, the Minister of State said that
  "it is likely that market prices would have been further depressed in the absence of competition from the live export trade."—[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326,c.947.]
  Who is right?
  Mr. Morley: When my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I met the directors of Farmers Ferry, they accepted that live exports, by themselves, had not increased the price of lamb. That is a fact of life. Their argument was that such exports put a floor to the price of lamb, and that that had stopped the price falling further. That is somewhat different.
  The Government would prefer meat exports to be exports of meat rather than of live animals. We want value to be added in this country. The export of live animals means that jobs in our meat industry are exported too. That does not benefit the rural economy. We want there to be a strong export trade, because we have a good product to export. However, we want the benefits to go back to the rural economy through added value. That is good for welfare and for rural jobs.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: At a consultation meeting that I held recently in my constituency on the forthcoming rural White Paper, the overwhelming consensus was that more employment must be created in rural areas and that an important and desirable way to achieve that was to enable farmers to diversify into other businesses.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that that would bring about a far more prosperous and sustainable countryside than the policies of the Conservative party, which are seemingly designed to freeze it in time?
  Mr. Morley: I agree. There has been much diversification in rural areas, and it is the Government's policy to encourage and support it.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Christopher Chope: When the Government intend to respond to the report of the Food Standards Committee. [80349]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are considering the Committee's report on the Food Standards Agency Bill and we will respond to it, in line with its request, before Second Reading—of course, I am not in a position to say on what date that will be.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Will he join me in congratulating the Committee on having uncovered the fact that the levy will rise from £90 to £600 after three years? Does he accept the unanimous verdict of the Committee that the flat-rate levy is contrary to natural justice?
  What will the Minister do to counter the lack of proportionality? The four major supermarkets, which have a joint turnover of £40 billion a year, will pay £1 million in levy while all the other retailers, bed-and-breakfasts, corner shops, voluntary organisations, schools and charities will pay £300 million. Is not that unfair?
  Mr. Rooker: On behalf of the Government, I am prepared to congratulate the Committee on producing a first-class report in a very short time. We find it of great assistance as part of the third stage of consultation on the Food Standards Agency.
  The idea that the Committee uncovered anything is nonsense. The Committee asked me whether, if the Government collected all the costs of safeguarding food safety and food standards from the industry—and we have no intention of doing so—the levy would be not £90, but £600. The honest answer is yes, but as we propose to collect only £90, the taxpayer will pay the other £510 towards food safety surveillance and work. The idea that the industry is being asked to pay the majority of the cost is absolute nonsense.
  We are consulting on the charge separately to the consultations on the draft Bill. We are actively looking at the alternatives that were put to us both before the consultation started and during the consultation. We have taken on board the views of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I cannot be more sincere than that. We seek an accommodation and a method of charging that is seen to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Obviously the final part of the Minister's answer is welcome. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that the Government are moving in response to what the Food Standards Committee has said, but may I ask the Minister to go a step further? Does he accept the major argument of the Committee that a flat-rate levy—a food poll tax just like the poll tax introduced by the Conservative party—is inappropriate, unfair and against natural justice?
  Is the Minister prepared to say that that applies also to the proposed Meat Hygiene Service charges, which were also initially introduced by the previous Government? Again, it seems that a flat-rate levy is to be imposed, rather than one that relates to headage.
  Mr. Rooker: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Meat Hygiene Service. There is no
  1038
  comparison between the charging system for the Meat Hygiene Service and the proposed levy for the Food Standards Agency.
  As I said to the Select Committee when I appeared before it over five hours, some new money must be raised, otherwise there will be no Food Standards Agency. The question is how we collect that extra money—it is currently estimated that the total required will be less than £50 million at £41 million—as cheaply and as practically as possible without creating an army of bureaucrats. The intention, as expressed in a separate consultation paper, is to use that money fairly for food safety.
  I have made it clear to the Select Committee and to anyone who has asked outside that we are considering the alternatives and, as I have said, the Government considered such alternatives before we published our paper. I even offered my own alternatives. There is no magic solution to the issue. We have to find one that is fair and perceived to be fair and acceptable to the industry and to the wider public. We do not want to spoil what will be one of the Government's most popular policies for a ha'p'orth of tar on the Food Standards Agency's charging system.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the universal praise for the Government's decision to use the pre-legislative inquiry process on the FSA? As someone who is heavily involved in the other pre-legislative inquiry into the other FSA—the Financial Services Authority—may I say that such an approach to legislation, with high-level consultation and scrutiny of a Bill before it is considered in Standing Committee, is universally admired. It is the way in which legislation should be introduced. Such an approach will also ensure that the respective legislation receives much broader support across the food and financial services industries. Is it not the fact that, for years, the previous Government imposed bad legislation on us and that, now that we have introduced this new procedure, the Conservatives do not like it?
  Mr. Rooker: In my 25 years' experience in the House, any fair assessment of the quality of our past legislative output—using industry's techniques to measure quality of output and performance—would classify it as abysmal. We are trying to modernise the processes of creating laws, to ensure quality for the British people. A draft Bill, with draft notes on clauses, was considered not only by a special Select Committee but subject to regional consultation. That was the third stage of consultation on that Bill—publication of the James report was the first stage, and the White Paper was the second. We have also received more than 1,000 submissions on the Bill.
  It would be preposterous to say that, having gone through that process, the Food Standards Agency will be a surprise to anyone in the United Kingdom. We intend to produce a quality organisation, to provide a quality service to the British people.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister understand that if he is not able to announce before the Bill's Second Reading the scrapping of that monstrous flat-rate charge and explain what will replace it, the Government's consultation exercise will be exposed as a farce? That charge will inflict a massive blow on

  1039
  thousands of small businesses, and irreparable damage will be done to many rural communities, where the village shop is an absolute cornerstone of life.
  Mr. Rooker: I realise that the idea of charging registered food premises the sum of £
  1.73 a week is very onerous to many such businesses—[Interruption.] I am making a statement; perhaps, when I spell out the charge—£1.73 a week—it does not have the right ring about it. Nevertheless, as I have said more than once, we intend to make our proposals and to reply to the Food Standards Committee before the Bill's Second Reading.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on progress with the establishment of a Food Standards Agency. [80351]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I obviously cannot be precise on the matter. However, we have received a large response to the public consultation, and shall introduce the Bill in this Session if time is available. Everyone understands the position that the Government are in, as we have made it absolutely clear. One of the reasons why we had a short consultation period, and why the special Select Committee had a short time to consider the Food Standards Agency Bill, is that—depending on progress in reform of the other place—we shall seek an early legislative slot, before the end of this Session, for the Bill's Second Reading and Royal Assent.
  Mr. Gapes: I welcome that answer, and tell my hon. Friend that many hon. Members are delighted at the way in which, in less than two years, the Government—the Ministry and the Department of Health—have worked to restore public confidence in food in the United Kingdom. However, may I ask him please to talk to his colleagues in Government, to ensure that the Bill is introduced as soon as possible so that that process may continue?
  Mr. Rooker: Yes. We have talked to colleagues in Government throughout the process, but, as I said in my initial answer, colleagues in the other place who are not part of the Government have the matter in their hands. We are dependent largely on the time that the other place takes to decide on its own reform. Nevertheless, as we have made it abundantly clear, progress on the matter is not being hindered because we lack a Bill. Since September 1997, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food no longer has total control over United Kingdom food standards and safety. The setting up of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group was important, as it provided a unified management structure across two Departments—the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As time goes on, we will build on that development. The premises that the group will move into—as we announced in March— are being converted, so the practicalities of the work will progress.
  Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister understand that he would make rapid and consensual progress with the establishment of the Food Standards Agency if he abandoned his plans for the poll tax on food, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has referred? I can take the Minister
  1040
  to village shops in my constituency which have already taken the decision to stop selling food. They make little money on it, and they fear a hike in charges. Does he understand the fear of farmers in my constituency who, perhaps, run bed-and-breakfasts, and farm food shops and attend farmers' markets, and who thus may be eligible not once, but three times for that charge? Does he understand that the progress of the Bill and the agency would be smoother if he abandoned the charging proposal?
  Mr. Rooker: I understand the hon. Gentlemen's points, and it would be quite ludicrous if market traders were charged more than one sum for visiting different markets. I openly accept that such issues have been raised during the consultation. Without the required extra money, there will be no Food Standards Agency. We still have to find a way of raising the sufficient sum, which will, as I have said, at maximum, be £50 million—our current estimate is about £41 million. I understand that progress on reaching a decision could be considerably improved, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), we will make our decisions known—particularly our views on the recommendations of the special Select Committee—before Second Reading so that the House is fully aware of the proposals.

  The Attorney-General was asked—

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about the efficiency of the CPS. [80373]
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): There is a continuing interest in the restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Attorney-General and I regularly receive inquiries from people—including hon. Members—about the service. The Glidewell report on the CPS made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency of the service. Additionally, the Government decided to restructure the CPS into 42 geographical areas to improve efficiency and accountability. The CPS is making good progress in considering and implementing the recommendations. Additionally, recently, the new 42 chief Crown prosecutors were appointed to take forward the changes.
  Mr. Amess: Although I readily accept that there is much praise for the work of the Crown Prosecution Service from certain quarters, is the Solicitor-General aware that an increasing number of my constituents are complaining about the time that the CPS is taking to examine cases? In addition, there is no information as to how investigations are proceeding. Is the Solicitor-General prepared to say that when many of the cases are ultimately dropped, justice is being sacrificed because Her Majesty's Government simply are not putting enough money into the staffing of the bureaucracy that is necessary to deliver the services offered by the CPS?
  The Solicitor-General: On the whole, cases moves quickly through the CPS. However, the hon. Gentleman

  1041
  has a valid point in relation to the handling of victims and the relations of victims. Sir lain Glidewell made a specific recommendation about that—one of a handful of recommendations on which we have not yet reached a final decision. We have accepted the principle that the matter must be dealt with much more thoroughly.
  The Government's paper "Speaking up for Justice" contains a number of recommendations about how victims, relatives of victims and witnesses should be better informed. The legislative aspects of that are being taken forward in the Access to Justice Bill.
  Mr. David Kidney: The new chief Crown prosecutor for the Staffordshire office has introduced himself to me, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss the work of his office. Now that we have the aligned boundaries between the CPS and the police, can the Solicitor-General tell me what improvements in performance my constituents and I can expect?
  The Solicitor-General: All hon. Members should have received letters from chief Crown prosecutors in their area, and I would encourage them to make contact with them. CCPs now have greater autonomy in their areas. In addition, the areas are coterminous with the police authorities, so there should be more efficient operation of both the CPS and the police.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: We, too, welcome the 42 new chief Crown prosecutors. Does the Solicitor-General recognise that the business of putting them in post has taken almost twice as long as was first announced in May 1997, when the Attorney-General came to office?
  Is there not a further example of the sluggishness that affects so many Departments in what is happening with electronic mail? I saw successful e-mail pilots in Ipswich three years ago. The new strategic plan for the criminal justice system proudly mentions that Stockport is the first police force to have such a pilot and that it is hoped in due course to have pilots working between courts, the CPS and the police. As we had successful pilots so long ago, is not that yet another example of sluggishness, as opposed to the Government's hype? When will all CPS areas be in e-mail contact with their courts and police stations, which is not a very complicated matter?
  The Solicitor-General: We have been in power for less than two years. We have acted quickly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office for a long time. As soon as we took office we appointed Sir lain Glidewell to review the CPS. It was only proper that he should consider it carefully, and his report has been widely commended. We are now acting on it. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) a moment ago, a decision has been reached on all but a handful of the recommendations.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the use of electronic sources to further efficiency. That is being implemented. He has seen the operation of e-mail pilots in Stockport; I have seen it in Durham, and I know that it exists in other places as well.

  Government Legal Work
  Mr. David Lock: What steps he is taking regarding the appointment of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government. [80374]
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Following the implementation of his new appointment procedures, in accordance with which the vacancies are widely advertised, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has recently appointed 48 junior counsel to the Crown C panel. An advertisement inviting applications for the London A and B panels was placed last month, and he will make new appointments to those panels in the summer. Appointments to the provincial panel are expected before the end of the year.
  Mr. Lock: I declare an interest as a former practising barrister who is still a door tenant in chambers, although my duties in the House and to my constituents prevent my practising. Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise the advances that have been made in the legal world, and especially in the Bar outside London, in the past 15 years? Will he ensure that the new openness, which is extremely welcome, will be reflected in the appointment of more barristers to do Government legal work outside the Inns of Court and the hallowed Temple, who live perhaps more in the real world, in Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds?
  The Solicitor-General: It is a pity that my hon. Friend was not able to apply for a position on the panel. The new procedure attracted a large number of exceptionally good applicants, and we have made some very good appointment. It was important to open up the procedure and make it transparent.
  My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the appointments of counsel in the provinces. As I said, we are in the process of advertising for that panel as well.
  Mr. John Bercow: Can the Solicitor-General confirm that all appointments of counsel to undertake civil law work for the Government are determined strictly by market testing, overseen by officials, and that, beyond giving the formal seal of approval or imprimatur to the winners, there is no other ministerial involvement?
  The Solicitor-General: I can certainly give that assurance. The decisions were made by a panel appointed by the Attorney-General, but neither he nor I had any involvement in the process.

  Acquittals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: If he will ensure that debriefing sessions take place between the CPS and the barristers it instructs following acquittals where the pre-trial assessment by the CPS pointed to a high likelihood of conviction. [80376]
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Such cases should always be considered carefully so that the reasons for the acquittal can be established. In some cases the reasons are clear. Where they are not, the Crown Prosecution Service is sympathetic to holding such

  1043
  meetings. The CPS routinely conducts an analysis of all acquittals in the Crown court. A report is prepared by the caseworker who has attended court with counsel, and the report is subsequently discussed with the police. In such circumstances, debriefing sessions with counsel are arranged in order to discuss the issues that have arisen.
  Mr. Prentice: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, but debriefing sessions should happen as a matter of course when a case comes to court and the police, the CPS and everyone else have a clear expectation that the jury will bring in a verdict of guilty. The Solicitor-General knows of the case of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, whose son Lee was killed in a road accident in Staffordshire in 1997. Seven young men were packed into a car that went whizzing down the motorway at 120 mph. The driver was inexplicably found not guilty by the jury. My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, cannot fathom why the CPS in Stafford did not hold a debriefing session with the prosecuting counsel. If that were done as a matter of course, it would inform research into why juries bring in the verdicts that they do.
  The Solicitor-General: I am aware of the very sad case to which my hon. Friend referred. Juries sometimes come to inexplicable conclusions, as anyone who has been involved with jury trials knows. That does not mean that the jury was wrong, or that it was wrong for the CPS to bring the case. It is simply the nature of the process. Juries can come to unexpected conclusions.
  There is a good case for debriefing on a regular basis. The CPS has entered into discussions with the Bar Council about how that can be done routinely so as to provide key information to the people involved.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), especially with regard to the quality of the prosecution barristers. A constituent of mine who was a witness in a case feels that she was ripped apart with irrelevant questions about her personal life when she was giving evidence against someone. She was not defended by the prosecution lawyer, and the case was subsequently lost. The quality of the people employed seems to be appalling. What does the Solicitor-General intend to do about it?
  The Solicitor-General: I am not aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he writes to me, I shall
  1044
  look into it. The CPS receives reports of adverse performance by particular counsel, as a result of which such counsel might not be briefed in the future. Both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) have raised a serious matter, and I shall look into it.

  Hamilton v. Al Fayed
  Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will make a statement on the cost of the intervention in the Hamilton v. Al Fayed case in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the House of Commons. [80377]
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Treasury Counsel's fees and the costs of the Treasury Solicitors Department in that case came to a combined total of £13,451.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: £13,000?
  The Solicitor-General: That did not involve any fee on my part.
  Mr. Chope: We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for not having charged an additional fee for his appearance. Does he accept the verdict in the Court of Appeal? What steps are being taken to recover the wasted costs from Mr. Al Fayed, at whose suggestion that intervention was made?
  The Solicitor-General: We entered as a neutral party. That was accepted in the Court of Appeal decision. We were not taking sides on behalf of Mr. Hamilton or on behalf of the defendant. We were putting the important arguments raised with us by the House authorities on the parliamentary privilege point. The Court of Appeal accepted the important point that we made about the courts respecting the procedures of the House. You, Madam Speaker, were intimately concerned in this matter. At the end of the day we did not appeal because we thought that the Court of Appeal had got it right. It did not accept all our arguments—in particular our argument about the exclusive jurisdiction of the House over the conduct of Members. On the whole we were satisfied with the way in which the Court of Appeal said that the trial judge had been wrong about querying the procedures of the House.

Business of the House
12.31 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 26 APRIL—There will be a debate on defence equipment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
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].
Until about 4 o'clock there will be a debate on the Government's policies on housing and the green belt. Followed by a debate entitled Job Losses, Industrial Collapse and the Failure of the New Deal. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 30 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 MAY—Bank holiday.
TUESDAY 4 MAY—Until about midnight, progress on remaining stages of the Greater London Authority Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 MAY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Greater London Authority Bill.
THURSDAY 6 MAY—Debate on modernising London's health service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. Will the Leader of the House confirm what she said last Thursday, namely that the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday on the NATO summit and the situation in Kosovo? As all options are being kept under review, will the House be regularly updated thereafter, not least if the position changes on the use of ground troops?
On the backlog of promised debates, I must press the Leader of the House for the debate on the reform of the House of Lords. The Bill is making progress in another place. It is some considerable time since the White Paper was published, and the debate would now be informed by my party's publication of the Mackay commission report. Can the right hon. Lady try hard to find time for this debate in the near future? I note in passing that the upper House has found time for a debate on the national changeover plan for the euro, whereas we have not.
Can the Leader of the House confirm also that she has not lost sight of the usual debate on policing in London? Can the Government find time next week to explain the
1046
muddle that they have got into on the working time directive? This commitment, which the Government signed us up to, is apparently being broken by the national health service, with technicians at the Royal Victoria infirmary Newcastle taking the trust to an employment tribunal. Despite the extra money for the NHS, is it the case that it does not have the resources to observe this directive?
Finally, can the House now be given the dates of the Whitsun recess so that Members and staff can plan their diaries?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I can confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday following the NATO summit. I have little doubt but that he will take the opportunity to update the House on affairs in Kosovo and that either he or others will continue to keep the House up to date with events, as we have done throughout.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the backlog of promised debates, but what we have is a backlog of debates that he has asked for and which I have agreed should be considered. We will try to find time for them when we can. Of these, the debate on the reform of the House of Lords is one that we hope for which to find time in the reasonably near future. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, as I said last week, there is a creative tension between the desire of the House for continuing debate and update on issues such as Kosovo, and the many other matters that the House would wish to debate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why we do not have a debate on the changeover plan. The Lords debated that, but its agenda is in its own hands. He asks the Government to provide time for a debate on a subject on which the Conservative party could engage in debate were it to join the committee that the Government have set up. He also asked for the usual debate on policing in London. I have not lost sight of that.
It surprises me when Conservative Members raise the working time directive because they were in government when it went through in the European Union. Indeed, the Conservative party, having not voted against it, made a clumsy and expensive effort—that anyone could have told it would be unsuccessful—to take the matter to court. If it had proceeded sensibly and properly with good government and followed through consistently its stance in Committee on the matter, no one would be in any difficulty—the directive would have been in place and we would have had proper experience of how it worked long ago.
Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend encourage a clear Government statement next week on our policy towards Kosovo refugees? When I was in the camps in Macedonia last week, refugees told me that they had put down to go to Norway and Germany. Both would have preferred to come to Britain but had been told that Britain did not want them. I do not know whether that was true but I found it worrying. So far, we have been told that only 250 Kosovar refugees are coming to this country. I have had several phone calls from members of the public who believe that we should be far more generous and are willing to offer accommodation. I think that that is the will of the people of Britain. They want

1047
us to throw our arms open to refugees, who through no fault of their own cannot stay in their homes and will not be able to return to them in the foreseeable future.
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend says, there is much sympathy in the House and across the country for people in that terrible position. She knows that the Government have had a couple of approaches from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on behalf of families in particularly difficult circumstances, and that we are giving much support, faster and more efficiently than many others, to help people to survive in the area of Kosovo. There may be some individuals who want to come to this country or others, but the great bulk of those who are, sadly, refugees continue to express the view that they want to go back to their homes in Kosovo. We are anxious to do what most of the refugee effort is geared to doing: giving people all the help and support that we can now and maintaining them in that area so that they can more readily return to their homes as that becomes possible.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We endorse the plea for clarification of the Government's policy on Kosovar refugees. The Leader of the House has promised some debates rather than merely having had them requested of her. First, on the second report of the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs, she well knows that there is a narrow opportunity for the House to debate the issue so that it can take a decision and arrange the necessary works in time for the start of the autumn Session.
On an issue equally important in terms of the need for decision, the Leader of the House knows of my long-standing concern about the proposal to charge our constituents to use the line of route through the House in the summer. I understand that if we are to dispose of the matter speedily and effectively, we need a debate in the House as soon as possible, and she has promised one.
Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make an urgent statement on NHS dentistry next week? She will have seen the report in The Independent today, based on an analysis by the British Dental Association, that NHS dentistry is close to collapse and that the number of NHS patients has dropped by 5 million since the previous Government altered contract arrangements in 1992. All parts of the country are affected by the collapse in a service that I fear we all have taken for granted. In Cornwall there is a particularly difficult situation, to which the report refers. Does the Leader of the House recognise that people throughout the country feel that they have contributed to the NHS through their national insurance contributions all their lives and that they simply are not getting the service for which they have paid?
Mrs. Beckett: First, may I take this opportunity to meet an unanswered request from the official Opposition for recess dates. I cannot give them yet. I will give them as soon as I possibly can.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked for clarification on the Kosovo refugees. We have made plain our approach to the treatment of the refugees, and we will continue to keep the House updated and informed on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have undertaken to give time for a debate on the report of the Modernisation Committee. I was a little surprised to hear
1048
negative noises from the Benches immediately opposite me, as there is a continual call from Conservative Members for further opportunities for scrutiny of what the Government are doing. That is precisely what it is intended to propose.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall also asked for a debate on charging for the line of route. We intend that any decision on charging anyone for access to this place—say, during the summer recess—should be properly considered, debated and taken by the House as a whole.
I can assure him that we are also conscious of the problems that we inherited in the NHS dental service. The Government have published a couple of documents—"Investing in Dentistry" and "Personal Dental Services". We have consulted widely and we expect soon to publish a new strategy for NHS dentistry.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I gave her office notice this morning? During the debate on defence equipment on Monday, will a statement be made on what knowledge is available on the pollution effects of the military action on the Danube—whether pollution is going down river to Hungary and Romania—on the effect of attacks on chemical plants, on chlorine-related problems, on any disease that is likely to arise and, not least, on whether depleted uranium shells are being used? If that is the case, some assessment really ought to be given in Monday's debate to the effect on health and whether the situation will resemble that in southern Iraq. Those are matters of fact that the House of Commons deserves to know about.
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that matters of fact are matters about which the House of Commons should know. He will recognise that the difficulty is that those facts are not always available to us. I undertake to draw his request to the attention of my hon. Friends who will lead for the Government in the debate. I have no doubt that if they have information which will answer some of the questions that my hon. Friend raises, they will do their utmost to make it available to the House. I merely caution my hon. Friend that in view of the action that is taking place, sound information such as he requests is not necessarily widely available.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate which will allow the Public Accounts Committee, on its return from its investigations in Brussels, to report urgently to the House its findings with regard to sleaze and corruption in Brussels? Such a debate would perhaps allow the Prime Minister himself to comment on whether he has confidence in his protege Mr. Prodi to sort out the sleaze and corruption, given the suspicion in some quarters that a group of Italian gentlemen close to and appointed by that gentleman are the least likely people to sort out sleaze and corruption in Brussels, never mind anywhere else.
Mrs. Beckett: Mr. Prodi has no relationship with or responsibility for the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. He was the appointee of the previous Prime Minister, although I do not hold him responsible for that. I merely say that if we are going to point fingers all over the place, they do not point over here. One of the reasons why Mr. Prodi was supported not only by this Government but unanimously by all

1049
member states of the European Union is the perception that he has a record of improvement and efficiency in Italy.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my right hon. Friend give the House some time, between 6 May and the date when we rise for the Whitsun recess, to debate the regional development agencies and the next steps towards regional government in England?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to do so at present, especially within the short time scale suggested by my hon. Friend, but I shall bear in mind his keen interest in that matter.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Most hon. Members are aware that, from time to time, we hear more in the newspapers than in the House about prospective Government business. Newspapers have been leading with statements to the effect that the Government are to introduce, as a matter of urgency, a Bill to deal with the disappeared in Northern Ireland. Can the Leader of the House give us any information as to the timing of such a Bill? Can we have an assurance that the Government will not allow the terrorist organisations to continue playing ducks and drakes, especially in the way that such organisations put pressure on the families of the disappeared to prevent publicity and post mortem examination? If there is to be immunity under that measure, may there also be immunity for those called to give evidence in the inquiry into Londonderry that was recently set up?
Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I have not seen the reports to which he refers—I am sorry about that. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; I am sure that she will understand the point that he makes.
Mr. Tony Benn: Has the Leader of the House studied Hansard for Monday of this week? If so, did she notice that, although all the major parties support the general policy that the Government have adopted towards Yugoslavia, there was a great deal of support—it was more than sympathy—expressed by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for the idea that Parliament should have the opportunity to register its opinion on a substantive motion? I say that because I seek an assurance from the Leader of the House that, were any decision taken to commit ground troops, which would represent a complete change from the original policy, the House would receive a motion seeking support for that so that we could debate, discuss and decide it. We should then avoid the fiasco of Monday, when 13 Members expressed a view on the Adjournment of the House, but the House itself had no opportunity to register its opinion on the nature, objectives and character of the policy being pursued.
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend has raised that matter in a variety of ways on several occasions. He continues to press his point of view, as he has every right to do. As I have told him before, although I well
1050
understand the express wish of Members on both sides of the House for a decision-making procedure of the type that he describes and suggests, there is no precedent for that in the House. I cannot give him the assurance he seeks that the Government intend to break that practice, which was adopted for extremely good reasons.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Since my question last week, has the Leader of the House had time to discuss with the Minister for the Cabinet Office the desirability of debating the national drugs strategy, following the publication of the first annual report of the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator, so that Members can discuss those vital issues, which affect almost every community in the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: I have considered the matter and the request made by the hon. Lady. The matter will be discussed through the usual channels. However, the hon. Lady will be aware—as are all hon. Members—of the great pressure on the business of the House at present.
Mr. Martin Salter: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about what is becoming a crisis for national health service dentistry, is my right hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members share those concerns? For example, until recently, about 60,000 people in my constituency had no access to a full NHS dentistry service on which they could rely. Will she convey those concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and find time for Members to debate what has become an extremely urgent and important issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed today and on previous occasions on behalf of his constituents, but all I can say is that we intend to publish proposals in the not-too-distant future, and perhaps at that time it will be possible to air the issues in the House. I understand the depth of concern felt in every constituency, in every part of the country, about the lack of service available. I heard the shadow Chancellor talking on the radio the other morning, about how the Conservative party had always said that the NHS was safe in its hands, but one of the best examples of how it was not is NHS dentistry.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Can we have a statement next week on the plight of those British businesses that are the innocent victims of the trade sanctions resulting from the European Union's illegal banana regime? The Government were quick to offer £40 million in compensation to the Scottish cashmere industry and to exclude Scottish biscuits from the list of firms that were subject to sanctions, but it appears that, if the firms are based in England, the Government are not quite so sympathetic. May we have an urgent statement on that subject next week?
May we also have a statement to clarify a doubt that has now arisen in the minds of many sub-postmasters in this country, many of whom are paid only £2.10 per hour for a 38-hour week by the Post Office? It would appear that, under the minimum wage legislation, they are entitled to a substantial pay rise.
Mrs. Beckett: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in working the national minimum wage into a

1051
question about bananas. It is nonsense to suggest that there is some discrimination in the way in which the Government have handled the concerns of businesses throughout the country that have been affected by that trade dispute. I am slightly surprised, and perhaps even a little disappointed, that the hon. Gentleman is apparently so unsupportive of the concerns of Caribbean banana producers, on whose behalf this country, under Governments of both political colours, has sought to act for so long—perhaps that is new conservatism. I shall draw the issues he raises in respect of the Post Office to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to an earlier answer, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position on a vote on the military action against Serbia, bearing it in mind that, if such a vote were to take place, there would undoubtedly be an overwhelming majority in favour of dealing with ethnic cleansing, mass murder and rapes in Europe? [Interruption.] Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be useful—
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Wait until the body bags come back.
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Winnick: Regardless of the interruptions, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely useful if there were a debate in the Belgrade Parliament, in which critics were able to express their point of view without fearing for their very lives? That is the difference between the dictatorship whose crimes we are currently combating and own free and democratic Parliament.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's final point about how unfortunate it is that the sort of free debate and freely expressed differences of view that we, quite rightly, hear in the House are unlikely to be heard in the Serbian Parliament, not least because, in many cases, the information that might fuel such opinions is denied. I also understand the desire he expresses on behalf of those of us who, despite recognising the difficulties and concerns arising from such action, would like an opportunity to register our support for those who carry the burden of responsibility in dealing with that extremely difficult situation. However, I remain of the view that, attractive though such a proposal is for those reasons, it is not appropriate to change the precedent in the House at this time.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Leader of the House discuss with the House authorities whether it might be possible to arrange for those who work in this place—Members of Parliament and their staff, and all those who work elsewhere in the House of Commons—to have the opportunity to give money to aid the Kosovo refugees, whose plight is simply unbelievable and grows more awful with every passing day? Will she ask the relevant authority whether it would be possible to put collecting tins in the Bars and Cafeterias and other places where people gather, so that the House and all those who work here can make their contributions?
Madam Speaker: Order. That is hardly a matter for the Leader of the House at Business Questions. However,
1052
as I am sympathetic to the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), I shall allow the Leader of the House to respond.
Mrs. Beckett: I am very grateful, Madam Speaker. I think many in the House would welcome that suggestion. As the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) will be aware, despite a tendency in the press to notice only Members of Parliament and to divide expenditure on the House only by our number, some 9,000 to 10,000 people work in and around the Palace of Westminster. It may be that many of them would welcome the opportunity to make such a contribution. As you said, Madam Speaker, the hon. Gentleman is not seeking a debate on this matter, but I think the whole House will welcome his suggestion.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I refer the Leader of the House to her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) concerning refugee policy and treatment. We all obviously want people to have the right to access this country as asylum seekers. Will the Government clarify, by way of a statement or a debate, their policy regarding asylum seekers coming to this country? As I understand it, present Kosovo refugees will be granted automatic entry to the United Kingdom—I have no complaints about that—but those who arrived earlier did not receive automatic entry. Many of them have been denied both access to any benefits and the right to work in this country and must sustain themselves with food parcels handed out by local government. If a substantial number of asylum seekers arrive in this country—and, as I said, I have no problem with that—it is essential that local authorities from inner-city areas where many asylum seekers are likely to go receive sufficient funding to deal with their social services, health, education and recreational needs so that those asylum seekers may live a decent life in this country for as long as they wish to remain. The Government must clarify their position towards local authorities that will be expected to deal with the problem when those unfortunate people arrive.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend may have noticed that it is Home Office questions on Monday, and he may have an opportunity to put his questions directly to the Home Secretary, who is responsible for handling some of those asylum applications. Some 120 Kosovar refugees—mainly women and children—are expected to arrive in this country in the next few days. The Government also anticipate a further request from UNHCR to accept 18 medical cases with 121 dependants between them. My hon. Friend will therefore appreciate that they are quite specific cases forwarded by the refugee organisations for specific reasons: those people need care and treatment which can be provided in this country. For that reason, our approach is different from that which we take to refugees generally when we seek to sustain them in a region. My hon. Friend asked several other questions about local authority problems and, as I said, he should seek to raise them with my right hon. Friend at Question Time.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read yesterday's article in the Financial Times about the annual report of the International Institute for Management Development,

1053
which is based in Lausanne? It revealed that, embarrassingly, Britain has fallen three points on the international competitiveness league table and is now 15th, behind countries such as Sweden and Australia. Will the Leader of the House find time to debate that subject so that we may point to the Government's economic management failures in the past year?
Mrs. Beckett: I have not seen the particular story to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am aware that international surveys and league tables are of varying reliability and produce varying results. I recall vividly the fact that the United Kingdom ranked below Sweden and Australia in many competitiveness surveys produced under the previous Government.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 572:
[That this House believes that the artefacts of the previous Welsh Parliament should be returned to Wales; recalls that the Pennal Letter and Seal of Owain Glyndwr sent to France in 1404 are of great historical significance in Wales as rare treasures of Welsh history; and believes that they should be reclaimed from the French National Library and exhibited and honoured in Wales as tangible links between the Parliament of 1404 and of the Assembly of today.]
The Leader of the House will appreciate the difficulty that I have in convincing her that we must debate urgently an event that took place in 1406. In that year, the last Welsh Parliament sent certain artefacts—the Pennal letter and the Great Seal of Owain Glyndwr—to the French king. They are now housed in the national library in Paris and, while they are of no significance—a mere footnote—to French history, they are the only tangible link between the last Welsh Parliament and the new Assembly to be established next month. Would it not be marvellous if we could reclaim those treasures?
Mrs. Beckett: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I freely confess that I was not aware that those interesting historical artefacts were held by the French. I am uncertain whether the French Government would readily release those objects, and I am conscious that the British Government are frequently petitioned to release historical documents and artefacts that were brought to this country. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales who, I am sure, despite his pressing concerns with important elections in Wales, will do his utmost to explore the matter.
Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the woeful performance of some of her colleagues in responding to questions tabled for answer on a named day with substantive answers on that named day? I note from her reply to my question on that matter that her Department manages to answer a perfectly reasonable 85 per cent. of questions on the named day, but the Treasury manages only 32 per cent. and the Department of Trade and Industry only 31 per cent.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, when I asked a named-day question, said that it would give me a reply as soon as possible, and that was borne out by the
1054
eventual substantive reply stating that it managed to answer only 26 per cent. of questions on the named day. Does the right hon. Lady agree that those figures are unacceptable? Will she find an opportunity for those of her colleagues whose performance in this matter falls below her own to explain to the House how they intend to improve it?
Mrs. Beckett: Although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my Department, I point out that we have a lighter administrative work load than the Departments of some of my colleagues. I have mixed feelings on the matter. Of course the House must have proper and prompt replies to Members' questions. However, I confess to the House—perhaps I should not—that when I was in opposition, I never gave any thought to the realism of the day that I named in my questions. I merely bunged down the date on which I wanted an answer to my most urgent question. I suspect that most Members do the same—it is perfectly reasonable that they should.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that some questions are of considerable complexity and it may take time for Ministers to answer them as accurately and fully as they can. I understand his concern, but delays are understandable, particularly for Departments that have a heavy work load and where accuracy is essential, such as the Treasury and the DTI. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hold Ministers to account for the delivery of their answers, all I can suggest is that when he tables questions he might give a little more thought to how long it may take to answer them. I would not blame him if he did not, because I never did.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I recognise that security matters are not usually debated on the Floor of the House, but will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the grave allegations in the editorial of the Scottish National party's monthly newsletter that MI5 has infiltrated the SNP with agents provocateurs to cause damage and discredit to the party? Before dismissing those allegations as the fantasies of the James Bond party, we should consider the very real evidence that the SNP is being undermined from within, if only by its leader, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
Mrs. Beckett: I freely confess to my hon. Friend that I was not familiar with that concern. I should have thought that the SNP was only too grateful to get new members—but as an excuse for poor performance, its ingenuity makes one gasp.
Mr. John Bercow: Has the Leader of the House yet studied, and can we have an early debate on, early-day motion 560:
[That this House reasserts the importance of maintaining the integrity and political impartiality of the BBC; recognises the contribution made by Mr. Greg Dyke to the broadcasting industry; believes, however, that his substantial financial donations to the Labour Party render him inappropriate to be the next Director General of the BBC; and is confident that, in making this appointment, the BBC Governors will be conscious of the need to avoid accusations of political bias or cronyism.]
It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and concerns the appointment of the next Director-General of the BBC.

1055
Moreover, is the right hon. Lady aware of the widespread opinion within the House and outside that in the name of retaining the BBC's integrity and impartiality, Mr. Greg Dyke, notwithstanding his significant contribution to British broadcasting, would be a most unsuitable occupant of that high office, in view of his substantial financial donations over time to the Labour party? Does the right hon. Lady agree that to avoid charges of bias and cronyism and to retain public confidence, the BBC governors should properly take that widespread concern into account in making their judgment?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I remind the hon. Gentleman of where he ended up—that it is not the Government but the BBC board of governors that makes this appointment.
As for the notion that anyone who has ever given money to the Labour party should be debarred from holding public office, I can only say that if such a principle had applied during the period of office of the previous Government, the public service would have been denuded of many appointments.
Ms Hazel Blears: Could my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on public transport, particularly in inner-city areas? In Salford last week, First Bus, a major bus company, withdrew services unilaterally, leaving pensioners and working people stranded at bus stops. The alleged reason was attacks by young people on buses. Clearly it is important that buses and drivers must be protected, but in inner-city areas very few people have access to private transport—so keeping the buses running is crucial to the well-being of such communities. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am sorry to learn of the difficulties that her constituents experienced. On Tuesday, there will be tabling of Department of Trade and Industry questions. I have no doubt that through that and other ways my hon. Friend will find an opportunity to raise the matter. I fear that I cannot promise her an early debate.
Mr. Paul Burstow: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 562:
[That this House notes the issuing of Health Service Circular 1999/999 on the multiple sclerosis drug Beta Interferon; believes that this circular represents a further withdrawal from the Government's pledge of universal care for those that need it; finds the circular pre-empts proper consideration by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and opposes any further moves to ration drugs available on the NHS on grounds of cost rather than clinical effectiveness.]
The motion relates to the provision of beta interferon for the treatment and alleviation of multiple sclerosis. The Government have just issued new guidance to health authorities on the rationing of this drug. Why is it that we have not yet had a statement from the Secretary of State for Health, explaining why he has issued fresh guidance that has pre-empted the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which was meant to be giving guidance to health authorities so that they could take real decisions about the clinical effectiveness of beta interferon—rather than the Government, as it seems,
1056
dictating that decisions should be based upon cost-effectiveness, not clinical effectiveness? May we have a statement?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of himself. He says that the Department of Health has issued guidance. My understanding is that it has not. It may well be that someone has leaked a draft. Sadly, these things happen from time to time. I can only say that, as I understand it, a draft for guidance is being prepared. There have been some concerns about how it might be interpreted and the Department of Health is giving further consideration to how it might be clarified to meet those concerns. It has deferred issuing any guidance in the meantime, but it hopes to do so as soon as possible. If the hon. Gentleman still has concerns about the matter when he has seen the actual guidance, he will no doubt try to raise the matter again.
Angela Smith: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 566:
[That this House welcomes the Government's commitment to tackling global warming but notes that without further measures the United Kingdom is unlikely to reach its targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions; recognises that environmentally-benign refrigerants with low global-warming potential and significant energy-saving potential are not available for all refrigerant applications; and therefore urges the Government to introduce a system to incentivise a switch to such refrigerants, thus making a major contribution to filling the gap in policy on greenhouse gases.]
The motion relates to environmentally benign refrigerants—or friendly fridges, as we have called the relevant campaign. The motion draws the attention of the House to the problems of global warming. One of the problems is that in switching refrigerants from chlorofluorocarbons to hydrofluorocarbons we are reducing quite significantly, and very properly, the problems of the ozone layer, but the HFCs that are being used are causing severe problems with global warming. They are about 2,000 times worse than carbon monoxide. There are alternatives, and we welcome the Government's commitment to reducing global warming. However, we think that further action could be taken. I would like the Government to consider incentivising a switch to alternatives. I ask for an early debate on this issue in view of its importance.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate on the matter. However, I can tell her that the Government are developing a new climate change programme. Within that, we will be seeking to arrive at a balanced package of policies and measures covering all sectors and all gases. The problem, which given her remarks, my hon. Friend clearly appreciates, is the disadvantages of different measures. It is important to achieve a balance.
It is our intention to issue a draft programme for consultation later this year, and my hon. Friend may wish to return to the matter then. I had not previously heard the description "friendly fridges". People are always talking about new machines that will speak to us, so it opens up a rather endearing prospect.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Although the right hon. Lady is committed to a more structured

1057
parliamentary year, she was not able to answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the Whitsun recess. Is it her intention for the House to sit on 11 June, the day of the European elections, or not? It would be helpful to Members of this House, and, more particularly—[Interruption.] I should have said 10 June; I am sorry. It would be helpful to Members of this House, and also to all who work here, to know whether she expects the House to sit on that day or not.
Mrs. Beckett: I am truly sorry not to be able to oblige the hon. Gentleman with the information that he seeks, but those matters are under consideration. That is why I have not been able to announce the dates of the Whitsun recess. I have given the House an indication that we expect the recess to include the week of 31 May, if I recall correctly, but I fear that I cannot go further at present.

Points of Order
1.12 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you reflect on the use of business questions—in this case, by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow—to make highly tendentious and offensive ad hominem remarks about a named person? Mr. Greg Dyke is a friend of mine, and if he had to be mentioned this morning, it might have been as a long-term director of the successful Manchester United football club rather than in the terms used by the hon. Gentleman. If such remarks are to be made under the cloak of privilege, does not that raise questions at least for the manners, if not for the rules, of the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: I think we should always remind ourselves that we in this House have a great many privileges. Those privileges have to be tempered with responsibility. When we use the names of people outside, who have very great difficulty in responding, we should be extremely careful and consider our responsibilities as well as the privileges that we have here.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that there has been widespread concern across the Floor of the House—and, indeed, outside—about the detention of Senator Pinochet in this country. You have made a number of rulings to the effect that, because the matter is sub judice, it is not one with which the House may deal.
I leave aside the question whether it should be right that, uniquely, the House should not be able to discuss the matter when it is the subject of intensive, wall-to-wall coverage in the media, but I ask you specifically, Madam Speaker, to comment on the advice that I understand was given in the other place to my noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick, who sought yesterday to raise the question of the exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion.
My noble Friend apparently took advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments—who, I understand, is the Clerk of the other place. He was advised that, although other matters may be sub judice, the ruling of the Home Secretary is not. No application has been made for it to be reviewed in court, so it is not sub judice.
I do not wish in any way to humble the Clerk of this House, but I understand that, technically, he is the under-Clerk of the Parliaments and, therefore, the Clerk of the Parliaments in the other place perhaps has the correct wisdom on this matter. I propose to you, Madam Speaker, that, given that the Clerk of the Parliaments has advised that it is perfectly legitimate for this very important matter to be the subject of questions in the other place, surely it ought to be open to Members of this House to raise it. Many of us feel that the Home Secretary has acted disgracefully towards a friend of the United Kingdom and of our forces.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the House will of course understand that neither the Clerk of the Parliaments nor the Clerk of the House rules on such matters. In this House the Speaker will give the ruling, which may be based on the advice of the Clerk.

1059
I have not seen the advice which I understand was given to Lord Lamont. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have it. I shall certainly look at it as soon as I retire to my chambers, and I may comment on it at some stage. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that what he has told me is news to me, and that I should like a chance to examine it and reflect on it.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My point is relevant not least because, were you able to give an early indication of your response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), it might be possible for the House to discuss the matter. It urgently needs an opportunity to do so.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a further point of order. I have given my commitment to the House: I have said that I will examine the position.
Mr. Howarth rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can go no further. I have given a commitment to examine the hon. Gentleman's point. He did not give me notice of it, so, in all fairness and justice, he must now give me an opportunity to examine the advice given elsewhere.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is a separate point of order. I am sure that you will wish to correct a small inaccuracy: I am sure that it is not correct that our Clerk, or indeed any Officer of the House of Commons, is in any way subsidiary to any officer in any other place.
Madam Speaker: I think that that is correct. We regard the Clerk of the House of Commons as very superior; at least, I do.
Mr. Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of my earlier point. I refer you and others to column 1162 of yesterday's Official Report, House of Lords.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May we have a ruling on whether Members who are concerned about the apparent contempt for the rule of law shown by some Members of both Houses will be able to comment on it, especially when their contempt constitutes contempt for the rule of law that they passed when they were in government?
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me, but I note the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Orders of the Day

  Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.17 pm
  The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  We can be proud that a Labour Government are introducing this historic and long-overdue measure, which will make a real difference both to disabled people and to the overall welfare of our society. The establishment of the Disability Rights Commission is a tribute to the tireless campaigning of countless members of voluntary organisations, as well as the campaigning of a number of distinguished Members of both Houses. We thank them for their efforts, which have now borne fruit.
  Let me stress two important points. First, this is not a partisan measure, as I hope that it will command support in all quarters of the House. It is important to disabled people that it should do so, because if they are to benefit fully from its provisions they will need the widest possible consensus that their rights should be advanced, recognised and enforced.
  Secondly, although the Bill and the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission represent an important step forward, they do not represent the whole journey. Not long after we took office, I announced a three-part strategy for disability rights: the implementation of the remaining parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the establishment of a disability rights task force and the creation of a Disability Rights Commission. We have made good progress on all three proposals. In addition, we have introduced £195 million of help for disabled people under the new deal, reduced the threshold on employment covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, improved the access-to-work scheme and published a Green Paper on special educational needs, for whose action plan £60 million is earmarked. We are extending part M of the building regulations, and introducing a new disability income guarantee and disabled person's tax credit. All those are practical measures that extend disabled people's rights.
  We know that there is still much to do to change attitudes and behaviour so that we can really eliminate discrimination and fully harness the technology that has such wonderful power to transform many disabled people's lives for the better. However, I believe that progress is being made and, moreover, that public opinion has shifted decisively in wanting full and fair opportunities for disabled people as members of our community.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the sense of unanimity that is evident in the House, but will the Minister say why the commission proposed in the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, even though the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 do?
  Mr. Smith: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill, and I acknowledge his long-standing interest

  1061
  in and commitment to these matters, which is recognised in the House. I can tell him that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that equalities in Northern Ireland are safeguarded by other means, as I shall explain later in my speech.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), now Minister for the Arts, on their introduction of the Bill. My right hon. Friend is right to say that this is not a matter for party contention, but is he aware that only one Conservative Back-Bench Member is present—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to explain why the Conservative party spent the 1995–96 Session opposing the establishment of the commission.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I trust that Conservative Members have learned from that experience and from the public reaction to it. The Conservative party's resistance to the commission was held in particular contempt by disabled people. I believe that the Conservative party intends to support the Bill, and I welcome that. The broader the consensus that can be achieved for the work of the commission, the more inclusive will be the support for it and the better off disabled people will be.
  Mrs. Theresa May: I am happy to tell the Minister that Conservative Members support the creation of the Disability Rights Commission, although that does not mean that we do not think that the Bill cannot be improved in many ways. We support the concept of creating the commission.
  Mr. Smith: Fair enough, and I greatly welcome the support from all parties on the Opposition Benches for the measure. After all, the inclusive and better society that we want to achieve cannot include some people and not others—it has to include everybody. There are more than 8.5 million disabled people in this country. It is only right that their rights, and the tackling of discrimination, should be regarded as high priorities.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I share the House's warmth towards the Bill. He has explained the arrangements covering Northern Ireland, but will he say how he expects the provisions to be applied in Scotland and Wales after 1 July?
  Mr. Smith: I am pleased to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that I shall say more about the position in Scotland later in my remarks. However, I take this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of my right hon. Friend's long-standing involvement in and commitment to the cause of civil rights for disabled people, which played no small part in the introduction of the Bill.
  I said that there are 8.5 million disabled people in the country, and that their rights should be a high priority. The moral and ethical justification is enough in itself, but there are broad and sound economic and social reasons
  1062
  as well. The important thing is that policies and practices that advance disabled people's rights build a better Britain, for them and for us all.
  The Disability Rights Commission will have a central role. It will be a source of advice and support for disabled people. It will work with organisations that represent their interests. It will need to work with everyone else who has a stake in its purpose. The links that it forges with employers and service providers will need to be strong and productive. It needs to work with them and to build their confidence, so that it can be constructive in helping them to act in accordance with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law.
  Employers and service providers will need to understand and to embrace change if that change is to be real and effective. Getting that relationship right is key to the fulfilment of the commission's purpose in helping to foster the attitudes and behaviour that will make disabled people's rights a reality.
  The needs of a necessarily wide constituency will place a variety of demands on the commission, but we must guard against being too prescriptive in the Bill about how to achieve its aims. If it is to be allowed to do its job properly, it needs to be able to operate flexibly as well with a proper measure of independence from Government. We must empower it to take a wide range of action and trust it to use its resources wisely to achieve its objectives. The Bill strikes a good balance between direction and discretion, and ensures that the commission has the powers that it needs to do the job.
  The commission will have the resources. It has been provisionally allocated set-up costs of £3 million and an annual budget of £11 million. That is a fair settlement, taking account of the experience of the other equality commissions. However, I assure the House that the budget is not set in stone. As the Government made clear in another place, we are prepared to review the budget in the light of operational experience. That is a reasonable way in which to proceed.
  By way of background to the Bill, let me say that much thought, work and consultation went in to preparing its provisions. As its first job, we asked the disability rights task force to make recommendations on the commission's role and functions. I place on record the thanks of the Government—and, I feel sure, of the whole House—for the work of the task force. Its recommendations formed the basis of a White Paper that we published last July, which received strong support not just from disabled people but from employers and service providers.
  The Bill reflects very closely the proposals that we set out in the White Paper. In making its recommendations, the task force sensibly examined existing equality commissions in the areas of sex and race in Britain, as well as bodies with similar roles abroad. A number of the Bill's provisions mirror those on the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Where consistency makes sense, we have striven to achieve it. Equally, where it is desirable to update the provisions, we have done so.
  The Bill was well received in another place, attracting support from all parties. A handful of amendments were adopted, largely to clarify some of the technical or operational details. We are keen to press on with establishing the commission and with getting it up and running. We expect that to happen by spring next year.

  1063
  The commission's duties, which are set out in clause 2, will be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people; to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; to take appropriate steps to encourage good practice and to keep under review the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  I have already mentioned the important role that the commission will have in working with disabled people and the business and voluntary sectors, and the need for it to balance its activities in a way that best meets the aims that have been set. We believe that much can be achieved by promoting good practice and that it is therefore important that the commission should have such a function in the Bill.
  Within those duties, the commission will be able to offer advice to Ministers on existing and proposed legislation—whether emanating from this country or from Europe—wh—rever issues arise connected with the elimination of discrimination, or equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. I am pleased to assure the House that this will include the Human Rights Act 1998. The commission will be able to give its views formally to Government on that Act and on the full range of relevant legislation. However, how and when to do that should, rightly, be a matter for the commission itself, and the Bill allows the commission that flexibility.
  Clauses 3 to 5 are concerned with the commission's ability to undertake formal investigations to determine whether discrimination has taken or is taking place. They also deal with the action required by those who are the subject of investigations. Of course the Commission will work with employers, service providers and others to try to avoid discrimination initially, and, when it occurs, to tackle it through dialogue. However, when constructive dialogue does not achieve the desired effect, the commission must have the teeth needed to deal with those who persist in discriminating unlawfully.
  The arrangements proposed in the Bill are based on those that currently apply to the other equality commissions; but there are also differences. We have sought to modernise and strengthen the provisions, taking account of evolving practice in those other commissions. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing provisions affecting formal investigations, thereby allowing flexibility in responding to change and future needs.
  Clause 4 currently allows for regulations to be made to define further the scope of non-discrimination notices, which are served on those who have been subject to a formal investigation when they are found to be discriminating unlawfully. The regulation-making power was intended to allow us to refine the process at a later date, taking account of changes arising from the CRE and EOC reviews. However, we have now made some further progress on that complex matter, and I therefore hope that it will prove possible to table amendments in Committee to include more detail on the matter in the Bill.
  The Bill also proposes that the commission may enter into legally binding written agreements with a body that is being formally investigated. The intention is that such an agreement will bring to a halt any formal investigation and avoid the need for a non-discrimination notice. Placing such an arrangement in statute is a good innovation, which will be entirely new to equality commissions in Great Britain.
  1064
  We should like the commission to work constructively with bodies that are keen to deal with shortcomings that they have identified in their organisation, and realise that that may be achieved best through written agreements. Such agreements could be reached more quickly than going through the formal investigation process, and, in many cases, are more likely to work with good will on both sides. However, if the agreements break down, we have made provision for aspects which might otherwise have been dealt with by the issue of a non-discrimination notice to be enforceable through the courts.
  We believe that it is right to make such provision. Written agreements should be seen as a better option for employers or service providers who are acting unlawfully and want to do something about it, but not as a soft option. The commission will also be able to resume an investigation that was previously halted.
  Our proposals on written agreements demonstrate very clearly one of the relationships that we want the commission to foster, so that agreed action by organisations is achieved by co-operation rather than grudging compliance.
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I simply seek some clarification. Although non-discrimination notices will be public, and there will be a public database of them, will written agreements be public or private?
  Mr. Smith: I expect that they will be public.
  Clause 6 allows the commission to assist individuals with a range of support when they seek redress for being discriminated against. It also states the criteria that the commission will use in determining which cases to support.
  We want the commission to be able to support test cases, which will help to clarify the law and help disabled people who could not secure their rights without assistance. Within the criteria, the commission will be able to take account of the impact that a person's disability has on his or her ability to pursue the case unaided. The criteria will allow ample scope to those who are likely to need help most; for example, those with mental health problems, those with learning disabilities or those with severe sensory impairments.
  I recognise, too, the force of the argument that the commission itself should be able to take cases on behalf of individuals, or a group of individuals with a common complaint. It is a concern that I understand, and one that the Government are addressing. Through the representative actions working group, the Lord Chancellor is looking at the issue of representative actions. It is a complex area that raises some fundamental issues of law, such as defining who can bring representative actions, the scope of relief and the definition of groups.
  For those reasons, it is neither necessary nor sensible for us to act unilaterally by changing the Bill. However, let me assure the House that we will seek to ensure—if necessary, through legislation—that any new powers which may be conferred on bodies as a result of these considerations, will apply to the Disability Rights Commission.
  Clause 7 allows the commission to recover costs of providing assistance to individuals when a court—or, more rarely, a tribunal—makes an award for costs. That replicates the arrangements which already apply to the EOC and the CRE.

  1065
  Clause 8 deals with codes of practice relating to employment and access to goods and services. We believe that the commission should be charged with the role of producing codes that will give practical guidance to the public, business, service providers and others on how to avoid discrimination, promote the equalisation of opportunities and encourage good practice.
  Courts and tribunals will have to have regard to the codes when considering cases of discrimination. The commission will be required to produce a draft code for consultation before it goes to the Secretary of State for approval. The codes must be laid in draft before this House and another place before they can be brought into force.
  Clause 9 allows for the commission to make arrangements for the provision of a conciliation service dealing with disputes under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—access to goods, services, facilities and premises. Conciliation arrangements are already available in the area of employment—covered by part II of the 1995 Act—where that function is undertaken by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
  We want the Disability Rights Commission to arrange for and monitor a conciliation service in the area of part III of the 1995 Act. We want it to be available to disabled people and service providers directly, rather than by first going to a business or voluntary organisation for advice, which is the somewhat cumbersome procedure currently under the Disability Access Rights Advice Service.
  Clause 10 replaces the bureaucratic mechanism for reviewing the small employer's threshold below which the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 do not apply. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disability Rights Commission—in addition to those whom he is already required to consult—about adjustments to the small employer threshold. The commission will be in a key position to advise the Secretary of State on this important matter.
  There are a few other points that I would like to mention. I would like to thank the disability rights task force, all the groups and individuals who contributed ideas and the officials who have worked on the White Paper and the Bill. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East, who have accomplished something of real value in their periods of responsibility for bringing forward the Bill.
  I pay tribute also to the good work the members of the National Disability Council have done, and continue to do. That body, which is—to a limited extent—a predecessor of the Disability Rights Commission will be abolished when the commission is established.
  On the composition of the commission itself, I would like to underline that the Bill provides for the majority of commissioners and either the chair or deputy chair to be disabled people or people who have had a disability.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the composition of the commission. As he will know, we have recently reformed the all-party group on epilepsy. Millions of
  1066
  people have hidden disabilities, and the all-party group is concerned that the needs of such people should be reflected in the general work and in the membership of the commission. I would be grateful if the Government could consider that as the Bill proceeds.
  Mr. Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the reformation of the all-party group on epilepsy. Epilepsy is a serious condition that affects very many people. I am pleased to give him the assurance that epilepsy will be one of the disabilities covered by the legislation, so assistance and advice will be available.
  The provision that the chair or deputy chair will be disabled or have had a disability will ensure that disabled people will be directly represented in a senior capacity on the commission and that there will be an appropriate balance of interests among the commissioners, allowing the commission to be credible with all stakeholders.
  Mr. Tim Collins: The Minister made a strong case for the provision that the chair or deputy chair should either be disabled or have a history of disability. May I press him on that point? Does he agree that, especially in the first year of the commission's existence, it would give a very strong signal indeed to the communities outside who are following this debate with great interest, if he could say that his preference would be that the chair should be someone who is disabled or with a history of disability?
  Mr. Smith: There is an enormously strong case for the first chair, in particular, to be someone who is disabled or who has had a disability, but I do not think, to be frank, that it would be right to write such a requirement into the Bill. Apart from anything else, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I—and, I believe, the public at large—want the person who chairs the commission to know that he or she was appointed as the best person for the job and not only because of having a disability. That is mainstreaming in practice; to do otherwise smacks of gesturism.
  The Commission's remit will extend to England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, the arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will apply. The experience of existing equality commissions has shown that offices in each of England, Scotland and Wales have been necessary and invaluable. We will expect the Disability Rights Commission to operate in a similar way, but I think that it should determine what other arrangements are necessary in the light of experience. For example, the commissioners might want to consider whether the commission should establish regional offices.
  As I said at the outset, the Bill is part of a wider programme to advance rights and opportunities for disabled people, and we are considering more generally how to advance disabled people's rights and counter discrimination. That is an important part of our strategy, but it would have been quite wrong for it to hold up this legislation, which has been so long and so eagerly awaited by disabled people.
  The disability rights task force is considering those wider issues, especially in relation to the acknowledged inadequacies of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Recommendations from the task force are expected later this year. We all look forward to them. I can assure the

  1067
  House that we will hold consultations on any administrative or legislative steps that are considered necessary, and that we regard that work, too, as very important as part of our overall strategy for comprehensive civil rights. It is an important task to win public support not just for the principle of fairness for disabled people, but for the practical action that makes it a reality.
  That is why we are launching this spring a two or three-year disability hearts and minds campaign. It will counter disability discrimination by raising public awareness of the barriers that disabled people face and how they can be overcome. It will also help businesses and service providers to understand exactly what is required of them in law. The campaign is being drawn up in partnership with disability and business organisations. I am confident that, together with the Bill and all the other steps that we are taking, it will help enable disabled people to take a full part in society.
  I am convinced that integration generates its own momentum, for at the bottom of much discrimination lies fear. At the root of that fear is ignorance, so the more chance everyone has to meet disabled people—in the classroom, in the workplace, in the supermarket—the more the corrosive base of prejudice will be eroded.
  What matters most is not simply Acts of Parliament, or commissions, codes or regulations. They are not the ends, but simply the means. What matters is the change in attitudes and behaviour, respect for decent human values, opening up opportunity and ending unfair discrimination, so that there is real change in the lives of disabled people, recognising that their opportunity enriches the whole community.
  I believe that the Bill and the Disability Rights Commission that it creates will do an enormous amount to advance those opportunities. Today we bring closer full civil rights for disabled people. It therefore gives me particular pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.
  1.47 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: This is indeed an important debate for disabled people. It involves the establishment, as the Minister said, of an organisation for which disabled people, disability organisations and those involved in disability issues have argued for some time.
  I recognise the disappointment and frustration that were felt when the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was introduced without an enforcement mechanism such as the proposed commission. That was widely felt to have been a significant omission. Despite that, we should not play down the importance of the 1995 Act as the first major piece of anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people in Britain.
  I was not in the House during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I recognise that there was much debate, and many heated arguments about the scope of the Act, the lack of an enforcement mechanism and many other issues. I acknowledge that many Members, and former Members now in another place, have campaigned long and hard for anti-discrimination legislation for disabled people. In particular, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who is in the Chamber today, tabled a private Member's Bill on the subject. I shall not dwell on that; indeed, standing where I do, perhaps it is better not to.
  1068
  Whatever the omissions from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it marked an important milestone for disabled people. I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in introducing that legislation during his time as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
  The view that we should not play down the significance of the 1995 Act is supported by a comment that I read in an article published a few months ago by David Grayson, the chairman of the National Disability Council, who stated:
  "The DDA certainly has weaknesses, but we must not under-estimate it. Indeed, we must not fall into the trap of talking the DDA down so much that businesses and others think it is so fundamentally flawed that no one will enforce it hard, so they don't need to worry for a few more years yet. That would be the worst of all possible worlds."
  The Bill establishes an enforcement mechanism. I reiterate what I said in an intervention in the Minister's speech: the Opposition will support the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. It was indeed one of the first questions that I was asked when I took over my present portfolio. My right hon. Friend the Shadow Leader of the House made our position clear when he responded to the Gracious Speech at the start of this Session. He said:
  "We will support the creation of a disability rights commission, although we shall look closely at the detail. I hope that the commission will ensure that the landmark disability rights legislation, which I took through the House, is properly enforced and leads to a lasting change for disabled people."—[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 16-17.]
  As my right hon. Friend made clear, support for the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission does not mean that we do not think that the Bill can be improved. We have already demonstrated during the passage of the Bill through the other place that there are improvements that can be made. Indeed, the Government have already accepted a small number of our proposals. I shall refer to some of them later.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: For the historical record, will the hon. Lady remind us why the Disability Rights Commission was not included in the 1995 legislation? What does she think has changed since then?
  Mrs. May: As I said earlier, I was not in the House when the legislation went through, so I cannot instantly recall the debates. My understanding is that the then Government made it clear that they would look to see whether an enforcement mechanism would be necessary, having established as part of that Act the National Disability Council to advise them on issues relating to disability discrimination.
  Mr. Roger Berry: For the record, the Government at the time did not say that they were considering introducing a commission. They fought tooth and nail to stop one being introduced. I welcome today's unity, but the hon. Lady should be aware that there was no doubt about why the Government did what they did. They did not want a commission at all.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: rose—
  Mrs. May: I will take two interventions at once.
  Mr. Clarke: In the magnanimous spirit in which my hon. Friends have all spoken, I too do not wish to make

  1069
  the hon. Lady feel uncomfortable. Whereas she was not in the House when Bills were being proposed and talked out, happily those who talked them out are not in the House now.
  Mrs. May: I note that second intervention and return to the first. I apologise if I gave a misleading impression in my response to the earlier intervention from the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt). The Government did not include in the Bill a reference to an enforcement mechanism such as the commission. Neither did they guarantee that they would introduce such a commission. My understanding is that they said at the time that they believed that the National Disability Council was a preferable route. That was why the Government chose that route at the time. But they said that they would look at the situation as it developed.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: We greatly welcome the conversion of the hon. Lady and her colleagues, but they should acknowledge that it is a conversion. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said:
  "The assumption that there has to be a commission to tackle the problems we know exist is flawed."—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1995; c. 389.]
  I welcome the recognition of Opposition Members that they no longer regard that assumption as flawed.
  Mrs. May: The right hon. Gentleman will find that not all Conservative Members opposed the concept of a commission when the legislation was going through the House.
  Mr. Collins: I do not want to detain the House for too long on a history lesson. Did my hon. Friend note that our right hon. and noble Friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out in the other place that, when he introduced his private Member's Bill, the Disablement Commission Bill, it was defeated with a three-line whipped vote by a Labour Government? Would we not now all do better to concentrate on the future rather than on the mistakes of the past?
  Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding Labour Members that they should look further back in history. There has been some hilarity among them on this, but we have made it clear that we support the Disability Rights Commission as the Government are establishing it, although there are aspects of the Bill that could be changed. I recognise that there was much feeling, both inside and outside the House, about the fact that such a commission was not introduced by the Disability Discrimination Act. That has now been addressed by the Government, and we have said that we support the concept. However, we will examine in detail the issues raised by the way in which the Government propose to establish the commission and its functions.
  At the heart of the debate are the main functions of the Disability Rights Commission and the question of what will be the main improvements in the lives of disabled people as a result of its establishment. A key task set out by the Minister is enforcement of the Disability Discrimination Act and providing advice and support for disabled people who want to take action under it.
  1070
  The commission is also charged with the ability to conduct formal investigations initiated by the Secretary of State or by itself. Such investigations may result in the issue of non-discrimination notices against firms or service providers requiring certain action to be taken to address the discriminatory behaviour or problems found to be contrary to regulations under Disability Discrimination Act.
  I was interested in the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He said that the agreements that the Bill proposes the commission should be able to enter into with employers and others would be made public. We fear that the public register of bodies against whom non-discrimination notices have been issued will not be changed when bodies act to put in place whatever is required by the commission. I understand that their names will remain on the register regardless of whether they cease to contravene the Disability Discrimination Act. We may wish to explore that in Committee in relation to the register of agreements that the Minister said will be kept.
  The functions that I have outlined are important and must be exercised judiciously by the commission. They raise an interesting question of timing in respect of how it will operate in its early stages. The Government said again today that assuming a reasonable passage for the Bill and Royal Assent this Session, they expect the commission to be in place in spring 2000. However, the final provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act are not yet in force. Part III starts to come into force in October, but its final provisions will not be in force until 2004. What approach do the Government intend the commission to take to issues arising from the part of the Act that does not kick in for another five years? I assume and hope that the commission will have regard to it and will incorporate it into its thinking on encouraging good practice, education and advice well before it comes into force. It is far better to ensure that goods and service providers know the requirements of the Act and do something about them than to wait for part III to come into force before taking enforcement action.
  Awareness is one of the commission's most important aspects. That is why Baroness Blatch moved an amendment to make it a duty of the commission to encourage good practice. The original Bill was rather vague in saying that the commission "may" encourage good practice. I welcome the fact that the Government listened and tabled an amendment to make it a duty. We may argue about the exact words that have been used when we come to the detail in Committee, but the spirit and principle are there, and we certainly welcome that. Not only is that right, but it reflects the recommendation of the disability task force on the issue in its July 1998 report, in which it said:
  "We propose that the main duties of the DRC should be to: work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people"—
  a duty that was in the original draft legislation and remains in the Bill—
  "promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people with those of non-disabled people;"—
  that is also in the Bill—and
  "promote good practice".
  It is important that that has now been recognised and incorporated into the Bill because it links with the other key task of the commission to work towards the elimination of discrimination and the equalisation of opportunities.

  1071
  Underlying those duties is what I believe is the fundamental matter at the heart of the Bill. I am sure that we all agree across the House that the biggest battle that we have to fight is the battle of attitudes. Sadly, discrimination is likely to continue until everyone recognises that disabled people should not be treated differently and that they want equal access to employment, goods and services and many other things that we all take for granted, but which are all too often denied to them through unthinking and ignorant attitudes. Disabled people need to be secure in the knowledge that they will not be turned away from the pub or restaurant because some unthinking manager thinks that their presence will put off his other customers. They want to know that they will be given a job because of their ability to do it, not refused because someone thinks that it will be too difficult to accommodate them in the office.
  Legislation sets out the requirements for practices, procedures, policies and physical access and the commission provides an enforcement mechanism, but neither of those functions will change hearts and minds. That is why we believe that there needs to be a strong element in the remit of the commission of working with employers and providers of goods and service to raise awareness and educate people. The commission should not be a litigious body or a legalistic body that sees litigation as its first port of call. It should work to ensure that disabled people do not suffer the discrimination that would lead to legal action in the first place. To do that, it needs to work with people, not adopt a confrontational attitude.
  I welcome the Minister's comments about the need for the commission to work constructively with employers and others. That approach was certainly suggested when the Government first announced their intention to introduce a commission in a written answer given by the former Minister for disabled people, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who is on the Government Front Bench today, to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal) on 21 July last year:
  "We emphasise that we expect that the commission should not work in an adversarial or oppressive way. There need be no tension between the interests of disabled people and the interests of employers and service providers. The commission should be seen as supportive of both disabled people and businesses alike."—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 519.]
  The hon. Member for Newport, East brought to his former post a particular interest in and experience of disability issues. I trust from the comments that have been made this afternoon that his view of the commission is shared by the current Minister with responsibility for disabled people.
  It is worth noting that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is shared by the Confederation of British Industry, which has welcomed the Disability Rights Commission. It has said:
  "The CBI believes that the Commission will have a very important role to play to support and progress implementation of the complex social reforms and the positive actions contained in the Disability Discrimination Act. We believe there is a crucial role for the Commission to provide a comprehensive educational and advisory service to all of the business community. We therefore urge the Commission during its first year to build on goodwill, and work in partnership with business to change attitudes and help to recognise inadvertent barriers before using enforcement powers as a means of eliminating discrimination against disabled people.
  1072
  In particular, it is key that businesses are able to: better understand the scope of the DDA and the definition of disability, know how and when to implement reasonable adjustments under the DDA, incorporate disability as integral to equal opportunities goals and good management practice."
  A key issue, which must be addressed at an early stage, is implied in that comment from the CBI: the current lack of understanding among all too many companies as to their existing and forthcoming responsibilities under the DDA. The issue is important; I fear that many companies do not understand what is being, and will be, required of them. At a very early stage, it will be necessary for the Disability Rights Commission to work to ensure that companies understand those requirements and responsibilities.
  Mr. Oaten: Does the hon. Lady agree that the education of those companies is not helped by the fact that about 80 per cent. of companies have less than 15 employees and are exempt from some of the regulations under the DDA? That cannot help the education process that the commission will have to establish.
  Mrs. May: I had intended to refer to the employer threshold issue later in my comments. It is important and has already been debated in the Standing Committee. It was raised by several of their lordships when the Bill was debated in another place.
  The Minister mentioned the Government's forthcoming hearts and minds campaign, which was intended to work with business to encourage the process of changing hearts and minds. The Government should note that there is some scepticism among disability organisations about that campaign and its likely impact. We all want to ensure that hearts and minds and attitudes are changed in the right way, but, if the campaign is to be effective, the Government will have to be careful about the way in which it is put in place.
  That view about the importance of working with organisations is echoed in the article to which I referred earlier, written by the chairman of the National Disability Council, David Grayson. He gave some examples of the way in which the commission could work with people, rather than against them. He referred to certain cases that had been reported in Disability Now, in which disabled people had been refused access to pubs. He continued:
  "DRC will certainly want to support test cases to establish the law or make formal investigations.
  But if it is using its brain as well as its brawn it will be creative too. It could go to major brewers like Bass and Whitbread and national representatives of pub landlords and persuade them to develop an industry-wide awareness and education campaign for pub staff. They could also promote disabled customer-friendly practices … British business must be persuaded to respond more energetically to the needs of disabled people in the marketplace and the workplace … if we mobilise our collective power as disabled consumers—plus the purchasing power of our families and friends—we can be a formidable business force too."
  Certainly, helping companies to recognise the importance of disabled people as consumers or potential employees will be an important task for the commission. However, the issue is broader than that; the commission has a general role in raising awareness, in education and in the promotion of good practice. The body will have the scope to work to increase understanding of disability and of the rights, expectations and needs of disabled people

  1073
  generally, not only among employers and service providers. That is an important function and I trust the commission will see it as a key element of its work. I repeat our belief that the commission should not be a confrontational, legalistic or litigious body, but one that works with all parties genuinely to improve the environment for disabled people.
  A number of issues remain uncertain in the Bill and in relation to the commission. The first is not specific to the Bill, although the Minister referred to it in his speech; it is the funding of the commission. The Government have stated that they will fund the commission to the tune of £3 million this financial year for set-up costs and £11 million in 2000-01; a provisional budget of £11 million has been set for the following year.
  That is less than the amount given to the Commission for Racial Equality. The Government's argument is that the CRE has to pass on about £4 million to local race equality councils—hence the difference in funding. I tried to ascertain from the Government the basis of their decision to award £11 million, given the functions of the commission. I cannot remember whether it took me three or four questions to the Minister. One of the arts that one has to learn when one becomes a Member of Parliament is that of tabling the right question at the Table Office, and I confess that I do not always get it right the first time—or even the second or third.
  During a considerable period of trying, I was first told that the basis for the £11 million figure was estimated costs for the different functions of the commission; then, when I asked what the estimated costs of those different functions were, I was told that it would be up to the commission to estimate the costs of the different functions. Finally, having rephrased the question yet again, I was told:
  "interim estimates indicate 10 per cent. of that annual budget may be devoted to administrative costs; 40 per cent. to advice and information, conciliation, assistance to individuals and formal investigations; 30 per cent. to promotional work, and 20 per cent. to policy work."£[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol.324,c.600.]
  However, estimates were not available in respect of the specific functions as set out in the Bill.
  I note that the Minister said that the issue was one that the Government would monitor in future and I recognise that the functions of the Commission for Racial Equality and the way in which it undertakes them may differ from those of the Disability Rights Commission; however, the DRC will have specific extra costs, such as those of ensuring that all information is available in forms that are accessible to all disabled people. The Government will have to consider that issue carefully and take advice from the commission in the early stages of its operation.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: No one disputes that the commission will face certain costs in connection with meeting the particular needs of disabled people. However, in the spirit of and in line with the requirements of the Bill and of the DDA, we expect the other commissions to make their material available in Braille and other forms that are accessible to disabled people, so they too face those costs.
  Mrs. May: I hesitate to suggest that, having made that statement, the Minister might now receive a call from
  1074
  those involved in the CRE and the Equal Opportunities Commission. Of course it is important that information and advice from those other bodies is available to disabled people in forms that they are able to access.
  Another issue requiring clarification is raised on the face of the Bill itself: the relationship between the commission's work and the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998. 1 suspect that other hon. Members will question whether it is appropriate for that relationship to be set down on the face of the Bill, or whether it should be in regulations, as the Minister indicated. The Government need to examine closely the impact of the Human Rights Act in respect of disabled people and on Government responsibilities, such as the health service and social services provision.
  Having participated in some of the debates on the Human Rights Act as it passed through its stages in the House, I am not convinced that the Government have fully and properly considered the implications that that legislation might have for some of those matters. The case reported into today's newspapers of young David Glass, whose family resuscitated him when the hospital had decided that he should be allowed to die, brings that issue sharply into focus.
  One of the functions that the commission should undertake in relation to education is not specified in the Bill: advice and information are referred to, but not training. It is important that the commission should be able to provide training for those with whom it deals and those who are affected by its work. Obviously, it will work with other bodies in pursuing that function, but the Bill should not ignore the issue of training.
  In response to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I said that I would refer to the employer threshold. Many of us were surprised when the Government, who in opposition had said that they would reduce the threshold from 20 to two, reduced it from 20 to 15 on coming into power. That caused considerable consternation among disability organisations, which wondered why the Government had suddenly changed an opinion to which they had held so fast when in opposition. It has been our experience in respect of many issues that the Labour party in government is going back on many of the pledges that it made when in opposition. It is easy to make promises when in opposition, but now that Labour is in Government, it finds it cannot deliver on those pledges.
  Because of amendments moved in respect of that issue, it was debated at some length in the other place. I note that the Bill mentions "the procedure for change" and there is some good argument for making sure that that procedure is rather easier than it was previously. However, the question of why the Government have not decreased the threshold further than they have is one to which many disability organisations will continue to want a proper answer.
  Mr. Levitt: Is the hon. Lady aware that, following the reduction in the threshold, well in excess of 90 per cent. of employees now work for employers who are covered by the legislation, and that only a small minority of employees continue to be excluded? The role of the DRC will be to advise the Government, not only on the number of employees at which disability organisations want the threshold to be set, but on the number that industry and

  1075
  business will accept. That number will be a first, not a last, step in reducing the threshold, so the issue is how fast and in what way the threshold will be reduced. The time has not yet come to judge the Government on the absolute level of the threshold
  Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that about 80 per cent. of companies are not covered by the arrangements—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) says, from a sedentary position, "Peanuts".
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I said people.
  Mrs. May: I do apologise. In that case, I shall not proceed with the rebuke that I was going to issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is a very good example of how sedentary remarks are unhelpful, even when they provoke a response.
  Mrs. May: They are even less helpful when I cannot hear them properly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Eighty per cent. of companies are not covered and the issue that the Government must answer is why, when Labour Members were so keen for the threshold to be reduced to two when they were in opposition, the Government failed to do that when they had the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. John Healey: At what level does the hon. Lady believe the threshold should be set?
  Mrs. May: We have not set a threshold—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Twenty."] I will say this: during the debate in the other place, we said that, if the threshold was to be reduced to the sort of level that many disability organisations wanted, we would question why it was to be two and not one. I fail to see why, if the level is to be reduced to such a low number, one should disadvantage sole employees of small businesses and not allow them the protection of the Disability Discrimination Act from which other employees benefit. I suspect that we may return to that issue in Committee or the later stages of the Bill.
  On the question of the representational nature of the commission, the Government have indicated that half of the members of the commission should be disabled or have had a disability. It is important to consider the issue of representation, and I trust that it is not the Government's intention to say that each member of the commission is representative of a particular disability. Although it is necessary to ensure that the commission covers a wide range of types of disability, it is important that the commissioners are appointed because they are the right people with the right experience, not as individuals wearing some sort of specific representative hat.
  It is also important that a cross-section of interests should be represented on the commission. That point was made when the hon. Member for Newport, East, then a Minister at the Department for Education and Employment, initially set out his intention of establishing
  1076
  the commission, and I trust that the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will confirm that that remains the Government's position. The then Education and Employment Minister said:
  "The Commission must be credible with all stakeholders. The body of Commissioners between them will need to have sufficient diversity of experience to be able to take account of the interests of all disabled people and to reflect the interest of all key stakeholders, including those of small businesses."—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 519-20.]
  It is important—particularly given what I have said about the way in which the commission should work with rather than confront people—to ensure that the commission represents all interests. External bodies, such as companies and service providers, must be willing and able to work happily with the commission to ensure that disabled people do not suffer the sort of discrimination that they often experienced in the past.
  As I said at the outset, we support the creation of a Disability Rights Commission, which we believe builds on the landmark anti-discrimination legislation introduced by the previous Government. It is another significant step down the road to ensuring that disabled people are treated equally in our society and are valued for the contribution that they do and will make.
  2.21 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Although time is short and I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate, I begin by paying tribute to the many people who have made the Bill possible. I feel both humble and proud and, in that spirit, I congratulate warmly the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and his ministerial team on their remarkable achievement in bringing this measure before the House today.
  I shall be gentle with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). This comment would probably be more appropriate coming from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but any sinner who has repented is welcome. However, if the hon. Lady wants to be convincing, the last thing that she should do is refer to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition—especially when, as Minister, he opposed everything that we have achieved today.
  Mrs. May: I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman should imply sinfulness on the part of someone who was not involved in decisions about the legislation. I hope that he does not adopt that approach to other sins, or we might all be implicated in all sorts of things.
  Mr. Clarke: I do not seek to reintroduce the idea of original sin. However, there is a Scottish expression that goes, "If you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows." The Leader of the Opposition appointed the hon. Lady to perform an almost impossible task: to make the previous Government's policies appear decent.
  In the spirit of this debate, I congratulate those who should take pride in today's achievement. Such people include my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and a wonderful colleague in my disability team, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—[HON.

  1077
  MEMBERS: "Erdington."] I could not get my hon. Friend's constituency right in Committee, and I cannot change my habits now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) did a wonderful job, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), who has disappeared temporarily from the Chamber, offered marvellous support for my Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 before his election to Parliament. He has continued ever since—now as a Member of Parliament —to fight for the things that he believes in. We look forward to hearing what my hon. Friends have to say if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I recognise also the tremendous work of the all-party disablement group which, led by Lord Ashley, has been the real engine room of disability campaigns. It must also be a proud day for my right hon. Friend Lord Morris of Manchester. Nor should we forget the countless numbers of unnamed disabled people and their organisations who fought the good fight when others thought the mountain was too high to climb.
  I am delighted to have this opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading of a Bill that has the potential to transform dreams into reality for many millions of disabled people. The Government must be commended for their relatively early introduction of such a comprehensive and important Bill. A pledge has been honoured and a promise implemented speedily.
  This is a Bill about people who constitute a substantial minority and yet continue to suffer discrimination in their daily lives that denies them the everyday rights that others take for granted. Much of that is now about to end. Such discrimination is clear to those who know the realities of life for disabled people who are seeking the equal opportunities that lie at the heart of a modern, inclusive Britain and of the Human Rights Act 1998.
  The Bill resembles legislation that has long been the norm in many other countries that have benefited from such measures. For example, America offers perhaps the most substantial protection in the world for disabled people. Many aspects of the proposed Disability Rights Commission will resemble measures in the United States, which I have seen for myself in operation. I have witnessed the benefits that such protection brings not only to the lives of disabled people but, importantly, to the United States economy as well. The reasons are obvious. The greater the access for disabled people, the more they, their carers, friends and families spend and contribute to the strength of the United States economy.
  We have received many excellent briefings from disability organisations, and Scope deserves congratulations for making that point. It stated:
  The average figure (the statistical mean figure) for workplace adjustments for disabled employees in the USA (October 1997) was $935, but the benefits of these to business was an average of $30,682—a 3200%% return on investment."
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to the Confederation of British Industry. We welcome its support, and I am sure that it will take that point on board.
  For that reason, groups such as the Employers Forum on Disability in the United Kingdom —which speaks for firms such as Marks and Spencer and Barclays—and the
  1078
  CBI have long realised the beneficial effects that a Disability Rights Commission can have for the British economy as well as for our social fabric. Article 3 of the German legislation outlaws discrimination. It says:
  "Nobody shall be discriminated against because of a disability".
  Unfortunately, despite many Back-Bench attempts, we were still far behind the legislation of many of our friends abroad—until today. Over the years, the House had seen attempts to introduce legislation to protect the rights of disabled people. All such attempts supported a commission and all, sadly, were in vain. It is tempting—especially in view of earlier exchanges—to dwell upon the fate of former Members of Parliament who talked out those Bills. However, on this happy occasion, I shall be positive about the future and about the anti-discrimination measures that the Bill introduces.
  In 1995, at long last, legislation was introduced that turned its back on the suggestion that there was no discrimination against the disabled. That legislation, however much it achieved or did not achieve, was entitled the Disability Discrimination Act. Reality had surfaced, even if many problems were not addressed. We did not get a Disability Rights Commission, but I warned then that its time would come. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I point out to hon. Members, particularly those on the Front Benches, that Madam Speaker takes the strong view that bleepers should not brought into the Chamber while they are switched on.
  Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  If discrimination does not exist, as was argued in the early days of the previous Government, why is the average income of disabled workers only 80 per cent. of the national average income? I am glad that, in the past couple of weeks, hundreds of thousands of disabled people, among others, have started to receive the benefits of the Government's minimum wage legislation. Similarly, it cannot be right that a disabled person is three times more likely to be unemployed and six times more likely to be turned down for a job than anyone else.
  The concern of disabled people, disability organisations and, I am sure, the Government is that the long-awaited Disability Rights Commission should be an effective body. We know that disability has trailed behind gender and race in getting anti-discrimination legislation and a commission, but those who benefited from the commissions combating race and gender discrimination have been as strong in their support of a Disability Rights Commission as I believe the House to be today.
  The Bill states that the commission will have substantial duties. It will be encouraged to be proactive, not just a talking shop, and it will have teeth. Remarkably, we are now close to realising the aim for which many of us have fought for many years. I am pleased that the Government have accepted disabled people's demands for comprehensive and enforceable civil rights and have honoured their manifesto commitment to the letter.
  I want to ask a few questions of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who will wind up the debate, to clarify issues that have been raised by disability organisations and some of my disabled constituents. Will there be an advocate on the

  1079
  commission, as Mencap has argued there should be, for those whose disabilities are so profound as to preclude them from membership of the commission?
  The issue of funding of the commission has been raised, and I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's clarification on that point. I understand that the Government have allocated £3 million to set up the commission and then £11 million for each of the two following years. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary clarify the Government's position on the crucial role—I heard it dismissed earlier—of the commission's views in that matter? Certainly, my Front-Bench colleagues should be congratulated on reaching an agreement with the Treasury because I know that such agreements are not easily achieved.
  The exemption for small firms has been mentioned, and I seek more clarification about that in the winding-up of the debate. I do not want to provoke Opposition Front-Bench Members too much, particularly as they appear to have been left sitting on their own, but the plain fact is that, when the previous Government introduced the Disability Discrimination Bill, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) could not be moved—he wanted to exclude 96 per cent. of firms from that Bill. Pressure in the House, in Committee and from disability organisations means that only 15 per cent. of firms are now exempt, which is 16 per cent. better than the situation that we inherited a couple of years ago.
  That said, I do not want to get too cosy with my right hon. and hon. Friends. This is a serious matter, and I want to push the boat out a little further. I shall not be happy, especially when I consider the working relationship that will exist between the commission, employers, employees and disabled people, if, when this Parliament ends, 15 per cent. of firms are still exempt. In its advice, Scope restated the view of many, including myself, when it said:
  "The moral and business case for staging a phased reduction of the small employer's exemption is overwhelming."
  I know that we have a listening Government, and I am sure that they will take that point on board.
  Disabled people are not just the stuff of political lobbying or special interest pleading; their rights constitute the vital, legitimate interests, as the Minister reminded us, of more than 8.5 million of our fellow citizens. They include the blind boy, about to leave school, who was rejected at a job interview the moment that the personnel manager saw his white stick, although he could have done the job as well as anybody else. They include the woman who was refused admission to a cinema because she was in a wheelchair, and the one space for a wheelchair had been set aside for somebody else. She was right to say, "I am not a wheelchair; I am a person."
  I am glad that the Bill acknowledges the demands of the One-In-Eight Group, which has campaigned vigorously to ensure that disabled professional actors, entertainers, producers and others have the right to have their talents recognised and not be discriminated against.
  Today is the realisation of a dream for many people, some of whom, sadly, are no longer with us. I can never forget heading through the snow north of New York, in the cold winter of 1995, with my then deputy, the late Gordon McMaster. Gordon, who had done so much on disability rights and who was so proud of his "Growing Concern" project, was with me when we had the privilege
  1080
  of being in the home of Christopher Reeve. We could only marvel at Reeve's courage—a quality shared by so many who today feel that their efforts were not in vain.
  Improving the rights of disabled people, as the Bill will do, will ensure that we enrich the lives of all. A Disability Rights Commission will help to set a new agenda for disabled people of skills, knowledge and opportunity—a new agenda for a new century and a beacon for the rest of the world. In that spirit, I congratulate the Government most warmly and wish them well.
  2.39 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: This is a good day not only, as the Minister rightly said in his opening speech, for people with disabilities, but for the whole country, because our society is stronger if it takes steps towards incorporating disabled people in every practical way. In establishing a Disability Rights Commission explicitly on the model of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, the House is making it clear that we regard discrimination against people with disabilities as every bit as evil and unjustified as discrimination against people on the basis of their sex or the colour of their skin.
  This is a good day. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and many on both sides of the other place have waited a long time for such a Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities on being the Minister who brought the Bill forward. 1 commend him for the tone in which he did so, as I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for the tone in which she responded to the Minister from the Opposition Front Bench. This is a genuinely non-partisan occasion.
  We have had debates about the history of these matters and it is clear that both Labour and Conservative Governments voted down proposals of very much the sort that are contained in the Bill. That was a mistake. I am glad that both parties have changed their mind and can come together to support the principle of the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, there are bound to be individual points of detail that need to be considered further. It may be necessary to consider amendments in this place as others were in another place, but a loud and clear signal should go out from the House to all those throughout the country who have an interest in these issues that they transcend party politics, and that the commission will be put in place for the future and will long remain an important part of it, whatever the outcome of future general elections. This is a landmark occasion in that respect.
  I have one or two points to make in respect of those general comments. I welcome the Minister's hope that the commission will be an engine for conciliation and a forum for the provision of information. It must be clear that it would be far better if the work of the commission went forward wherever possible without confrontation and without necessarily always seeking headlines, sparks, clashes and legal actions, through working together with employers, disability organisations and individuals concerned to reach agreement.
  An agreement that is voluntarily entered into will always work better and have a better chance of long-standing success than a court decision, where one party feels rather unhappy or disgruntled, or feels that it

  1081
  has not received exactly what it wanted and that its interests have not been wholly and fairly presented. The Minister was right to say that he wants the commission to move forward in a co-operative way. I welcome that.
  Mr.Tim Loughton: I agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. Does he agree that it is a good marketing point, for want of a better phrase, for firms to be seen to be friendly and user-friendly towards the disabled, just as, increasingly, it is good for firms to be seen to be environmentally friendly? To promote that does not require regulation and confrontation. I hope that the commission will be able to encourage better employment practices for disabled people in the best interests both of firms and of disabled people.
  Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. To build on that point, let me say that I very much hope that the commission will not merely identify best practice in the abstract in the sense of, "Here is a list of good things that some companies are doing in various parts of the country," but will publicise specific case studies. I hope that it will give good publicity to companies large and small that are operating in compliance with the law, and, I hope, in many instances going beyond the requirements of the law.
  Miss Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, while perhaps in 99 per cent. of cases it will be possible to reach an agreement about discrimination that has been faced, there will always be a small minority—I speak as one of those who have faced discrimination—of employers who have blind, naked prejudice, and will not employ a disabled person irrespective of whatever persuasion is used? In those cases, it is absolutely right that the commission is able to take decisive action.
  Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I was going to make that point. In fairness to the Minister, that is what he said. He said that he would prefer it to be possible for there to be conciliation, but added that it was important that the commission should have teeth in dealing with the minority. I hope that the hon. Lady is right and that the minority is as small as 1 per cent. I do not propose to put a figure on it because I simply do not know what it is. However, it is clear that there are problems outside the House and that the commission needs to deal with them. I hope that it will be able to do so with the minimum of fuss, but it needs to have teeth.
  A dramatic illustration was given in the other place by Lord Ashley of Stoke, who, in that place as in this, has been a long-standing campaigner on these issues, and the spearhead of many campaigns. He rightly referred to the research of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, which stated that
  "the handicap of deafness is a greater obstacle to obtaining employment than a criminal record or a history of drug abuse."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1470.1
  If that is what independent research is establishing, there is a real problem.
  1082
  The hon. Lady is right to say that such discrimination will often stem from ill-informed prejudice. Such long-standing social attitudes need to be challenged and changed, as is reflected in the welcome progress that has been made generally over the past 20 or 25 years in tackling prejudice on the basis of sex or race. I would not pretend that, as a country, we have eliminated all forms of prejudice in those areas, but we have moved dramatically forward in that time.
  I would not say that the only reason for progress in those areas has been the existence of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, but undoubtedly they have played their part. I hope that, in 10 or 15 years' time, the existence, the visibility and the practical effect of prejudice against disabled people will have declined at least as sharply as has discrimination on the basis of sex or race over the past 15 or 20 years.
  I said that I would make one or two detailed points, and I shall do so. We have already briefly touched on funding. I entirely understand the Minister's reluctance to go beyond what has already been said on the matter. I understand also the reasons that he has set out for arriving at the figure of £11 million for the commission. However, I am intrigued to note that the Government are proposing, at least in the interim, to roll the £11 million forward for the second full operational year.
  We all know—I am sure that the Government would be delighted to trumpet the fact —that inflation is at a relatively low level, but it is not non-existent. It is a fact that £11 million in three years' time will not buy as much as £11 million in two years' time. I hope that, at the minimum, the Government will be prepared to consider rolling over the funding in line with inflation, or at least in line with the increases that are provided for the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality.
  A central feature of the debate should be to establish that the early years of the commission will be critical. We all hope that the commission will be around for a long time, but the early years will be especially important. That is why it needs to have a flying start.
  That brings me to my next point, on which the Minister was kind enough to take an intervention from me. It relates to the identity of the chair of the new commission. The Minister made the perfectly fair point that he feels that, if he were to commit himself in the Bill to employing a person with a disability, or with a history of disability, that might be seen as a gesture of tokenism. Of course, there is already in the Bill a requirement that the chair or the deputy chair should be in that category, and that a majority of members should be in it.
  I put it gently to the Minister that, given that one of the primary information roles of the commission will be to try to persuade as many people as possible as quickly as possible that people with disabilities, or a history of disabilities, often are the best men or women for a job, it might seem curious that, when looking for the first chair of the commission, it is not possible to find someone in that category. I know that the Minister probably will not want to go any further. I think that I have probably chivvied him enough. I see from the nods that I am receiving from some Labour Members that there is a degree of support for my proposition. 1 will leave it at that with the Minister, with the strong hope that he will be

  1083
  able to find, as I believe he will, someone eminently qualified who happens to be disabled, or has a history of disability.
  Another matter that was discussed in the other place in relation to the composition of the commission was taken up by Lord Rix, who has a strong record of work on behalf of Mencap and other charities that deal with people with mental illnesses. He made the point that physical and mental disabilities are not the same. However, they can often result in similar forms of prejudice. They need to be tackled with the same vigour but they do not raise the same issues. Lord Rix expressed a strong hope that, on the commission, there will be someone who has knowledge, and possibly personal experience, of dealing with a mental handicap or disability.
  Again, I appreciate that the Minister will not want to commit himself to turning the commission into a body that represents each and every separate form of disability, and that is reasonable. However, I hope that he will reflect on what Lord Rix had to say and recognise that there is an important distinction between physical and mental disability.
  The commission will represent the 8.5 million people in this country who, according to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), have a disability. It will be considered to be immensely important to them, and its 10 or 15 members will rightly receive a huge amount of publicity. They will be seen as spearheads—the vanguard—for the whole of the disabled community. There is a distinction between physical and mental disability, but both groups should be represented on the commission.
  We need to look at the informative role of the commission in a little more detail. Earlier today, I consulted the rather good website put up by the National Disability Council at www.disability.org.gov.uk, which contains a lot of good material. The Minister would be the first to acknowledge that the internet is becoming a hugely significant source of information, particularly for people with disabilities, and plays a great role in the developing world of commerce. The commission will clearly be at the nexus of commerce and those with disabilities, so its internet commitment will be crucial.
  I return to my point about the commission having a flying start. I hope that resources adequate for achieving a strong internet presence, from day one, have been identified in the set-up costs—we all know how websites can grow. It is difficult to update them, although that is the absolute priority. Those of us with parliamentary websites may think that they are terrific, but we may forget about them and, a few weeks later, people say, "Your website is a bit out of date." We must get the internet presence right at the start, and I hope that the Minister has something to say about that.
  The commission must be seen to be concerned with the way for the future: although it is most definitely about tackling the prejudices and removing the oversights of the past, and improving the present, it has to be at the leading edge, making an exciting statement about the way that Britain sees itself on the threshold of the new millennium—and, I hope, a long way into it.
  In that context, the Government—perhaps understandably, because, at this stage, they want to maintain a degree of flexibility for themselves—have been a little vague on the timing of the establishment of
  1084
  the commission. I understand that they hope that it will get going in 2000, but they have not yet committed themselves to a precise month or date. If the Minister wishes to correct me, I am more than happy to give way.
  Ms Hodge: I have said on a number of occasions that I hope that the commission will open its doors for business in April 2000.
  Mr. Collins: I am most grateful for that helpful intervention; with luck, we may be within 12 months of the start date.
  The commission is to start up in the millennium year—in which we will all be very excited, for all sorts of reasons—so it is important that it gets a flying start and that its work, and the role of the disabled community, should be appropriately tied into the nation's millennium celebrations. I know that the Minister is not responsible for those matters, but we should think about using the dome to symbolise the fact that the Disability Rights Commission will be immensely significant for a large number of our fellow citizens. I hope that the Government will give some thought to that.
  I want to enter a small caveat, but I hope that the Minister understands that it in no way diminishes my excitement about, and genuine commitment to, the principle behind the commission. Businesses, and small businesses in particular, could be a little concerned about the work of the commission, but I hope that she will be able to reassure me on that point.
  On Second Reading in the other place, Baroness Blackstone explained that, to do its job effectively, the commission must stamp out discrimination and make sure that employers who act unlawfully are brought to book. She talked about the role of investigations. The commission will have teeth because it will be able to undertake investigations, and I welcome that. Baroness Blackstone said:
  "The investigations need to examine the structure of organisations so that they discover not only what discrimination is occurring, but why it happens. They need to deal with systemic as well as individual cases of discrimination.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1463.]
  On one reading of Baroness Blackstone's remarks, I had no difficulty with them whatever. It is clearly likely that a prejudiced employer, or business, who discriminates against a person with a disability has done so in the past and would, unless stopped, do the same to others in future. If there is a pattern of discrimination, it needs to be tackled head on. However, I am a little concerned—I suspect that the business community might be as well—about exactly what scope the commission will have to investigate the structure of an organisation and what, in practice, that might mean.
  For example, will the commission have the right to go into a factory employing 500 people to study a whole range of papers? What access will it have to information and what will happen in respect of findings of systemic discrimination? The Prime Minister yesterday expressed his wish, as Head of Government, to make sure that unnecessary regulatory burdens are not placed on business. We all feel—in principle, at least—that these regulations are not unnecessary, but, none the less, they must be considered in the overall context of businesses whose primary function is to make a living for themselves and for their employees.

  1085
  We must ensure that regulation is conducted sensibly and flexibly and I welcome the fact that the Government have laid great emphasis in the drafting of the Bill on their wish to preserve flexibility for the commission. I also welcome their suggestion that they expect the commission to consult widely on its work and feed in its views as the Government consult on other issues.
  It is important to get right the crossover between the world of commerce and the world of people with disabilities. I would not want the commission, as it starts up, to find itself opposed in any respect by any of the small business organisations, should they take against it because they think that it will impose regulations resulting in yet more inspections and all the rest of it, which they would oppose. If the Minister is able to give some assurance on that point, I would very much welcome it.
  I enter only that small caveat and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead has said from the Front Bench, the Bill has been recognised as being significant. It builds on the landmark Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was passed in the previous Parliament, and goes further. I hope and believe that it will not be the last word, either under this Government or under future Governments. This is a step-by-step process, and so it should be.
  What is regarded as acceptable in the last year of the 20th century is a long way ahead of what would have been regarded as acceptable in the middle of this century, but perhaps a long way behind what will be regarded as acceptable in the middle of the next century. We need to move forward all the time and I welcome the Bill, which represents a large step forward.
  I congratulate Ministers on being in office when the magic wheels stopped and, finally, both major parties recognised their mistakes and realised that they should be supporting such legislation. I hope that the Government will take it forward, work with all parties, make the commission a success and make us all proud of a society in which people with disabilities feel that they are entitled—and, as the norm, expect—to play their full part in that society, alongside all their fellow citizens.
  2.59 pm
  Mr. Roger Berry: I warmly and enthusiastically welcome the Bill. I could not imagine such a debate being held five years ago, and I am absolutely delighted that it is taking place in such a spirit. Many of the debates in the Chamber seem to involve hon. Members on one side of the House believing that every single word of a Government Bill must be gospel truth, and hon. Members on the other side of the House believing that every word must be totally false.
  I welcome the spirit in which the debate is being conducted. It represents a third way whereby we can all support the Bill enthusiastically, and for very good reasons, but recognise that reasonable people may raise issues for Ministers to consider in Committee or on Report. That, surely, is the way in which this issue, and many others, should be dealt with.
  I congratulate both my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of
  1086
  State for Education and Employment on an admirable Bill. I also commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), now Minister for the Arts, who has been a passionate, committed and reasoned advocate of equal rights for disabled people for more years than I can recall. As the first Under-Secretary of State responsible for the issue, he set up a disability rights task force, produced a White Paper last summer and gained the well-deserved respect and admiration not only of hon. Members, but of disabled people throughout the country for ensuring that the Government's commitment to comprehensive and enforceable civil rights was put firmly on the agenda soon after the general election. Indeed, discussions with disability organisations commenced immediately after the election, and the task force was set up within months. The Ministers whom I have mentioned deserve our thanks for all they have done: I am very impressed by the way in which the Government have handled the issue so far.
  There is no doubt that the 8 or 9 million disabled people in the country will warmly welcome the Government's commitment to the establishment of a Disability Rights Commission. That is much more important than my personal view. For the first time, disabled people will be able to fight their corner with the help of a statutory body. That is long overdue.
  Although the fundamental purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory body to enforce the rights of disabled people, it has another purpose. At present, employers who want to know what is required of them under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, or any other legislation that may be passed, have nowhere to go. Service providers—those who run superstores and supermarkets, and retailers of all kinds—want to know what the House expects of them, so that they can ensure that disabled people have equal rights. Those employers and service providers will be as enthusiastic as I am about the establishment of an authoritative body to which they can turn for advice.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, it is no exaggeration to say that this is an historic day. The absence of a commission of this kind was undoubtedly one of the most significant flaws in the 1995 Act. I again congratulate the Government on acting so quickly to remedy the omission—and, indeed, on doing so with a degree of openness and transparency that could be emulated more widely. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) mentioned the "disability on the agenda" website, which I believe belongs to the Department for Education and Employment. The website, which I use regularly, is a source of much useful information, including minutes of meetings of the disability rights task force. Not only have the Government established a task force to advise them—most of its members being disabled people—but they publish minutes of its meetings on the website. Such openness and transparency deserves congratulations, and I hope that it will be widely emulated.
  I have referred briefly to the crucial role played by Ministers here in producing the Bill. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge also the work of my noble Friend Lord Ashley, who saw as long ago as 1983, when he introduced his first Bill, that without a commission of this kind civil rights for disabled people could not be secured. The need for such a commission was also recognised by my noble Friend Lord Morris and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire

  1087
  (Mr. Barnes) when they introduced Bills, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) when he was a spokesman for the then Opposition. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all that he did at that time.
  I am delighted that the Opposition support the Bill, and I shall not undermine my genuine enthusiasm for the transformation that has clearly occurred by referring to past events. We should note that, over the years, the most important campaigners for civil rights have been disabled people themselves. I suspect that the present unanimity in the Chamber is due largely to the fact that disability organisations have pressed their case so effectively, especially through the umbrella organisation Rights Now!. We are where we are today because of that, and also because Members in all parts of the House have been prepared to listen to the campaign. It is especially important that Ministers have been so keen to listen, notably those in the Department for Education and Employment. I hope that the Government will be equally willing to listen when disabled people raise other issues with other Departments.
  Let me say something about the details of the Bill. A powerful case for the establishment of a commission has always been that, as we already have an Equal Opportunities Commission and a Commission for Racial Equality, we should also have a commission to ensure that disabled people are not given second-class treatment. The National Disability Council recognised that case after its first year in operation. I suspect that hon. Members knew that before, but I congratulate the NDC, and in particular its chair, David Grayson. Its first annual report said to the Government, "We have a really good idea. Will you abolish us, and set up a commission in our place?". Notwithstanding the council's important work, it is impressive that it had the courage to make such a suggestion in its first annual report.
  We can now contemplate the establishment of a state-of-the-art commission. We are able to draw on the experience of the EOC and the CRE, and we all agree that we want to do our best in setting up the new commission. The Government should, I think, consider strengthening a number of the measures in the Bill. I doubt that any of my suggestions will greatly surprise Ministers, as they have been well rehearsed in another place. Fortunately, however, the Government now have another opportunity to respond.
  My overriding concern is to avoid litigation wherever possible. I say that as one who, like all other hon. Members who are present, is committed to the establishment of a Disability Rights Commission. That will necessitate a legal framework to ensure the guaranteeing of legal rights, but none of us wants cases to be dragged through the courts if that can be avoided. I think that we should facilitate early intervention when discrimination is imminent.
  Written agreements provide an effective way of stopping unlawful practices in lieu of enforcement action. The Government have taken up recommendations from the CRE and the EOC that the commission should have the power to make written agreements with organisations that it suspects of breaching the law, rather than carrying out a formal investigation.
  However, although clause 5 provides for such written agreements, it does not do so in the way recommended by the other commissions. I contend that, under the Bill,
  1088
  written agreements do not apply soon enough. According to the CRE, the key time for a written agreement is following the preliminary written inquiry before the start of the formal investigation. It is then that organisations suspected of being discriminatory start getting a little nervous and want to avoid bad publicity. It would help if a formal agreement could be entered into at that point rather than after a formal investigation, which may prove not to be necessary.
  Clause 4 deals with non-discrimination notices. The power to include detailed provisions requiring a discriminator to change his practices in a particular way would be a useful addition to the Bill. The EOC and CRE have both made that point. Non-discrimination notices could specify the nature of the changes required and the time frame for their implementation.
  During the debate in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Morris said that issuing a non-discrimination notice without a time limit is like having a car without an engine: it may look good, but it will not get us very far. I accept that the Government acknowledge the problem, and I do not claim that my point is original. The Bill provides for regulations, but why does it not grant these powers? What is the problem? Surely this matter is hardly controversial.
  Mr. Oaten: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the lack of a time scale is a weakness in the Bill. Further penalties would have to be imposed if the time scales were not adhered to, otherwise they would be constantly ignored and repeat notices would have to be issued. An additional penalty for not adhering to the time scale should be included in the Bill.
  Mr. Berry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. We should take as light an approach to this matter as is practicable, but we cannot have time limits without penalties for breaching them.
  The Government have said that the Disability Rights Commission will be a state-of-the-art body. However, the Bill does not give it powers strictly equivalent to those of the EOC or CRE. Those bodies can take proceedings against discriminatory advertising, discriminatory practices, persistent discriminators and those who instruct others to discriminate. Apart from a power to initiate proceedings against discriminatory advertisements, none of those other powers are in the Bill, even though they have all proved useful to the other commissions.
  The EOC and CRE review their relevant legislation from time to time. Hon. Members know that, because those bodies kindly write to us and tell us how they would like the legislation to be improved. In their reviews they have often called for additional powers to initiate proceedings. In the other place, the noble Lords did not attempt to include in the Bill all the powers that the other commissions have. They tried to achieve a more modest objective: to make available to the Disability Rights Commission a narrow but useful right to initiate proceedings if it would best assist disabled people.
  Why should the Disability Rights Commission not be able to take up cases on behalf of disabled people, to relieve them of the stress of having to instruct a solicitor or of being seen to be taking action against an employer? The EOC wants to have that additional power in employment cases precisely because of workplace harassment. Disabled people are also likely to face those

  1089
  problems. Both the existing commissions want the power to take class actions on behalf of others. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to that, so I encourage him to consider this matter further. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission—the hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) may confirm this—can initiate proceedings in its own name. Why cannot the Disability Rights Commission do that?
  On the Human Rights Act 1998, I welcome the Minister's recognition that this is an important issue. The Act is mentioned explicitly in the explanatory notes, which I have read with great care, but it is not referred to in the Bill. There is no good reason why it should not be in the Bill. Some disabled people are among the least able to assert their rights. People with mental health problems, in residential care or in prison may experience human rights abuses. Such abuses are covered by article 2 on inhuman and degrading treatment and by article 8 on the right to family life.
  The Disability Rights Commission will only be as effective as the legislation it is empowered to enforce. You will be pleased to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not want to detain the House by going through many of my concerns about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 —suffice it to say that urgent changes are required. Let us not forget that it was produced on the hoof. The then Government brought more pages of Government amendments from the other place than there were pages in the original Bill. They had difficulty with the notion of civil rights. Happily, we are beyond that now, and I celebrate that. The genesis of the 1995 Act shows to anyone who is prepared to consider the matter that it should be radically changed.
  Reference has been made to the small employers exemption. The costs of domiciliary care and related services that enable disabled people to live independent lives should also be viewed from a civil rights perspective, and that should be taken on board. There are also issues relating to education, transport and the police. I am aware that, following the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the Government have expressed their intention to bring all aspects of the police's work under the Race Relations Act 1976, to enable the CRE to investigate possible discriminatory practices. I warmly welcome the Government's view on that, and I believe that the Disability Rights Commission should have similar powers. The police should not be subject to exemptions under any anti-discrimination legislation.
  There is much yet to do. The commission will be the key to further progress. The chair of the commission will be a leader and a figurehead. By appointing a disabled person, the Government would be sending out a strong message, and it is extremely important that they do so.
  Given the scale of discrimination faced by disabled people, a realistic level of funding is imperative. The £11 million figure is the figure for the CRE minus £4 million. Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment will be pleased that I can do mental arithmetic—I can certainly do that simple calculation, although multiplication is much more difficult. I suspect that the Government have taken the figure for the CRE and subtracted £4 million—the fund for local race equality centres—to arrive at the final figure of £11 million. I could be wrong; those figures could be
  1090
  entirely coincidental. I am not arguing for the equivalent of local race equality centres, which do a marvellous job, but there will be a need for local, accessible, technical advice for disabled people, and the cost implications of that must be addressed.
  The Government have taken a major and significant step to implement their election pledge of comprehensive and enforceable rights for disabled people. It should be welcomed with enthusiasm. Obviously, some areas of the Bill could be strengthened to make it state-of-the-art. I urge the Government to use the Committee and Report stages to do just that.
  3.20 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: May I say what a privilege it is to have a chance to speak in what is an important debate about rights for disabled people, and what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who has played such an important role in raising many of the issues and who made a thoughtful speech, which probably every Opposition Member can support.
  The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Bill. The party has long felt that it was needed. It is an important step in establishing proper civil rights for disabled people. I believe that it is something that the Liberal Democrats have backed for many years, but I do not want to fall into the same trap as the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—I am sure that someone can find a quote in Hansard from way back to contradict me. The Bill goes a long way to meeting the new Labour Government's manifesto pledge, in which they said that the legislation was needed. It is nice to see politicians keeping their word.
  I join in the tributes to Members, in this and the other place, for their years of work. That started long before I was elected to the House. They have done a massive amount of work and made many contributions. I also agree with the hon. Member for Kingswood: the work of the disability organisations is the reason why we have the Bill. In the two years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been enormously impressed by the quality of briefing and material from those organisations; it is second to none. Today we mark their efforts, as well as those of Members who have been mentioned.
  It has been a good-natured debate. There is much harmony throughout the House. I was tempted to point out what is almost an anomaly—a Government who are strong on pushing forward such rights issues, but who may not be as robust as some of us would like on the benefits regime. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is in Committee, where several of the concerns of disability groups have been raised about the impact of changes to the contributions mechanism for incapacity benefits, means-testing of incapacity benefits and individuals' pensions. However, given that this has been such a good-natured debate, I will not be tempted to go into those contradictions. I will just say that rights are important, but that the right to have enough money to live on is important as well. I hope that the Government will reflect on that point.
  As we have heard, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 represents a missed opportunity fully to advance the rights of disabled people. That is why I am pleased that the Disability Rights Commission is coming into force. It will help to address many of the concerns that the Act fails to address.

  1091
  I am encouraged that, over recent years, prejudice and discrimination against disabled people have decreased. Without wishing to re-open the Glenn Hoddle argument, the way in which the public and the national media responded showed how certain attitudes towards disabled people had changed in recent years.
  Sadly, however, there is still a problem in that the majority of people, particularly employers, have many misconceptions about disabled people. The minute they think of disabled people, they assume that they are all wheelchair bound. They do not consider the problems that disabled people have with learning, or the difficulties of those with mental health problems. Throughout their life, one in four people may at times have a mental health problem. That is not understood by the public and employers. As the Minister said, many of those problems stem from ignorance. The commission will have a critical role in starting to educate those people. I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that there would be a hearts and minds campaign. I hope that that is not just another new Labour gimmick, but a positive move to improve information for employers and to build on the changing attitudes among the public.
  I welcome the fact that the commission will have substantial powers to work towards eliminating discrimination, promoting equality, providing good-quality advice to employers and encouraging good practice. However, the commission will be effective only if it has the necessary powers of enforcement, good geographical access through regional offices and sufficient funding. If the commission does not have all those things, it will raise expectations that it will not be able to deliver. Above all, the commission will be as good only as the legislation that it is working with and its ability to enforce that. I shall touch on some of the failings of the Disability Discrimination Act and push the Minister to find out whether the Government will be able to move quickly on those issues even before the commission is established.
  One concern that has already been touched on by hon. Members is in relation to the regulations under the Act and the exemption for small companies. It is of concern that the vast majority of companies are exempt. We could, as the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) tried to do, debate how many individual employees work for them. I am not sure whether his figures were accurate, but the vast number of companies are excluded under the Act.
  The commission may embark on a hearts and minds campaign of its own, going around the country to educate people and encourage employers to realise that employing disabled people is a positive step for their company, and saying that the provisions of the Act are not that difficult for organisations to put into place. Its whole education programme will be undermined by the fact that the Government, by setting the threshold at 15 employees, have excluded many companies from the process. The clear signal that is sent is that the Act is complex and difficult, that we need time for it to bed in, and that the Government do not want to include all those companies because it might be difficult to enforce. It is counter to the signal that the commission will try to put across at all times.
  It is time for the Government to move fast on the matter. Rather than waiting for the commission to take a decision on the issue—I hope that it is an early decision — the Government should move speedily, as they have already suggested they are minded to do, to reduce the
  1092
  threshold to two. That would give a positive boost to the commission before it starts and would reinforce many of the measures that the commission will put in place.
  Clearly, some aspects of the Disability Discrimination Act need work. They include access to education, to transport, health and social services and, as the hon. Member for Kingswood said, the police. All those matters will require Government action if the commission is to be effective across the board.
  I turn now to the mechanics of how the commission will operate. We have heard a fair amount from other hon. Members about funding. I have two concerns about funding. It is wrong to enter the debate by trying to play off one commission against another and saying, "If that commission receives X amount, the other should receive that amount." That is not the way things should be done.
  I am concerned that the start-up costs for the Disability Rights Commission will be considerable. Much money will be needed for the organisation. That will be sapped quickly by all the regulations that will be required, producing information in a variety of formats, and getting fully accessible premises. Considerable investment will be needed to train staff in awareness and communications abilities, which will be needed to help the blind, the deaf, the deaf-blind and people with mental health problems.
  The start-up costs will be considerable. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the £3 million figure that has been arrived at is based on considerable consultation with disability groups and has been thought through, taking into account the type of work and costs that will be involved. I hope that if, during the start-up process, it is discovered that additional money is required to make the commission effective, the commission will be able to go back to Government to get that money, rather than taking it from the £11 million that has been allocated for running the organisation in its first couple of years.
  Although we have had some reassurance from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities that the Government are prepared to review the budgeting process, I hope that we shall hear a little more from the Minister who is to reply to the debate about how they plan to consider the issues. As hon. Members, we should be able to consider the budget implications two or three years down the line. We should also be assured by Ministers that if a proper allocation of resources is not made, the Government will have the will to increase budgets, and that—even in a financially difficult period for the Government, either just before or after a general election—the Government will not find themselves unable to make those resources available.
  There is a strong argument for saying that there should be the ability and systems in place to review not only funding and the other issues that we have debated today, but the mechanisms of the commission itself. Many of the concerns that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House have been about the effectiveness of some of the mechanisms provided in the Bill. We should be reassured that although the mechanisms would not necessarily be pilots, there will be the ability to change some of them if they are failing. I am thinking specifically of some of the inspection provisions.
  In two years' time, if it turns out that inspections are simply not resulting in attitude changes, we will have to be able to reconsider the relevant provisions and decide

  1093
  how to close some of the loopholes that undoubtedly will emerge. I shall welcome the Minister's views on the matter.
  In the other place, there was much debate on the proportion of disabled people who should sit on the commission. I am grateful to note that the Minister, in opening the debate, gave some reassurances on that issue, and that there has been a change in the Government's attitude to it. Although the Bill will not include a firm commitment that the chairman should be a disabled person, I think that all hon. Members will have taken comfort from the very strong reassurances that the Minister gave.
  I should say that I have probably changed my mind on the matter, and agree with the Minister that there are some problems with including such a requirement in the Bill. It might, for example, send conflicting signals on issues of equality and of jobs obtained on merit. Moreover, in different circumstances, the issues could be thrown back in our face by disabled groups. I am therefore minded to agree with the Minister on that point.
  I should also add that although we have received good reassurances from Ministers, and there has been some talk about the importance of a disabled person being the first chairman, I hope that future Ministers—when current Ministers are promoted to greater things—will take a similar attitude when considering the appointment of new chairmen. I should welcome the Minister's view on how that could be achieved, although I do not know how it could be if it is not included in the Bill.
  I should like to focus on the commission's investigation powers, which will require much more clarification. If the powers are to work effectively, they will have to be absolutely rigid; otherwise, the exercise will be abused by those wanting to bypass the regulations.
  The commission will be able to initiate proceedings only on behalf of individuals, and not in its own name. I therefore share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Kingswood and other hon. Members that the process could exclude some very important investigations that the commission may wish to make—simply because no organisation has clearly identified a specific individual, or, in other circumstances, because a specific individual feels very uneasy about demonstrating the courage to come forward and to be used as the focus of an investigation. In the next two or three years, there will undoubtedly be cases in which the commission is absolutely convinced that there is discrimination, but is unable to obtain an individual's agreement to deal with it. I should therefore be very grateful if the Minister would tell us how such circumstances will be tackled, so that the commission may act.
  I also have some concerns about clause 4, which deals with non-discrimination notices. I should like there to be some protection for organisations that may be on the receiving end of non-discrimination notices, and should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the process by which notices are issued. If a notice is about to be issued to an organisation, there certainly should be some warning to the organisation that that is about to happen. The Audit Commission perhaps provides a model. Before it serves various notices within its power, it may provide a 14–day period in which it informs an organisation that action
  1094
  will be taken, thereby allowing any factual errors or misunderstandings to be dealt with immediately, rather than suddenly discovering that a non-discrimination notice containing errors has been publicly served. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that point, too. It is an important point of trust that organisations should have a quiet, private period in which to ensure that a discrimination notice is accurate, and such provision should be included in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead made a very good point on the time period in which non-discrimination notices against a specific company should remain public. She was right to say that, if a company has put its house in order, there should be a time at which the non-discrimination order is either withdrawn or removed from the public database. I can certainly envisage situations in which a company changes management or ownership and subsequently becomes extremely positive on disability issues, although it has on its record a black mark that no longer has anything to do with that organisation, in which everything has since been put in order. I should certainly be grateful if the Minister would deal with that point.
  Perhaps I have missed something in the Bill, but I wonder whether any organisations will be exempt from the process? I should welcome reassurances that everyone—Government bodies, other public bodies and church groups—will be subject to the process. I have not seen whether the Bill provides for any exemptions, but perhaps the Minister will put my mind at ease on the matter. I think that it would be wrong if there were exemptions, and cannot envisage any circumstances in which it would be right to allow them.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with clause 4. Paragraph 8(4) of schedule 3 states:
  "The Commission may refuse to receive oral representations made on behalf of the person concerned by a person (not being counsel or a solicitor) to whom the Commission reasonably objects as being unsuitable."
  How would the hon. Gentleman interpret "reasonably objects" and "unsuitable" in the case of someone who wants to give evidence on behalf of a person who has been accused?
  Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which reinforces my belief that there should be a cooling-off period before a discrimination notice is issued, so that there may be a private dialogue to establish the facts. I should be concerned if, as has already been said, the commission had the power to refuse to enter into a dialogue. Perhaps the Minister will deal also with that specific point.
  I should like to deal with another matter that concerns me, and to be clear about the commission's powers to act in a specific example that I shall give. I hope that the House will bear with me as I try to stumble through an explanation of the circumstances of a case in my own constituency.
  About six months ago, Winchester city council received a sudden surge in planning applications —we received about 15,000 of them—for homes, and no one could quite understand why they were all being made. I shall not name the builder involved, but, once we made some initial contact, it became clear that the applications were being

  1095
  made because the builder thought that, although he had no intention of building the homes for many years, lodging the applications was a way of avoiding observing the Government's changes to the building regulations, which have not yet been implemented. The builder therefore thought that, in four or five years' time, once the legislation had been implemented, he would not have to meet the new building regulations requiring full disabled access.
  What powers will the commission have to step in in such circumstances? Will it have the power, for example, to take out an injunction against an organisation that is not committing a form of discrimination, but is engaged in the physical act of making an application or building a home that would fall foul of the commission's future objectives? Such acts would certainly seem to fall foul of some aspects of the legislation. I am not clear on how the commission's powers would operate in that example, in which a physical act or planning application is imminent which no number of non-discrimination notices will stop. Has any thought been given to whether additional powers are needed to take out injunctions to stop such activities?
  The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Bill, which is long overdue and will be a major step forward in establishing civil rights. The point of my questions is not to be critical, but to make sure that the commission is successful. We do not want to have a debate in two or three years' time about how it has failed, how there have been no orders against individuals, how practice has not changed and how homes have been built without disabled access. That would set back so much of the progress that hon. Members have been trying to make for many years.
  I hope that the Minister can deal with these issues and, above all, give the House a commitment that there will be a proper review of the effectiveness of the commission in two years' time so that we can iron out the problems and, we hope, come back and congratulate ourselves on the success of the commission.
  3.41 pm
  Ms Helen Southworth (Warrington, South): I join many of my right hon. and hon. Friends— and the one or two Opposition Members who are here—in welcoming the Bill. We have waited many years for legislation to give comprehensive and enforceable civil rights to disabled people.
  I am a new Member of the House, and I have come here as a member of the Government party. Before that, I spent 18 years in community voluntary organisations, working with people with a disability. We attempted to undertake normal activities, and I want to describe the sheer frustration for people with a disability of making arrangements to live a normal life in what we would expect to be a normal society at the end of the 20th century.
  Having decided to go somewhere, I have telephoned to check that the building is physically accessible because someone coming with us is a wheelchair user. I have been assured that it is, but arrived to find a series of steps to the room that we are to use; or to find that we cannot use necessary facilities, such as toilets, because of steps.
  I have tried to make arrangements for transport, and found that there is no public transport that can be used because of the disabilities of some people. I have found how extremely difficult and expensive it is to make

  1096
  arrangements to hire transport that is accessible. A person with disabilities needs sheer bloody-minded determination not to be left out of our society.
  I have been turned away from places because I have been with people with learning disabilities, people who have mental illness or people who have a physical disability. That was not necessarily because people wanted to turn us away, but because they were not aware of the arrangements that were necessary to make their service accessible, or because they had not made the investments that were necessary to make their service accessible.
  As I said, I worked for 18 years in community and disability organisations. A tremendous number of community organisations are making sincere efforts to remove barriers for people with disabilities from pubs, offices, houses, railway stations and bus stations, and to allow people who want to go to town to buy things to do so.
  People in communities are working extremely hard to raise awareness, and to work with and to facilitate disabled people in playing a full part in our society.
  There is not a disabled community out there. There are brothers and sisters, parents and children, and relatives and friends. We all want to be part of normal life. We want to make our towns, cities, schools and leisure facilities open to everyone and equally accessible. We want to go out and do things together.
  Charities, good employers and businesses, individuals and groups have not been supported by the legislative framework, which has not worked. There has been good will in many places, but no infrastructure. There has been no inducement to change.
  One of the clearest pictures that I had when listening to the debate was of a young man who is a wheelchair user explaining several years ago to a senior politician the experience of exclusion from employment. He was told that that could not be, because there was a Disability Discrimination Act; there was incomprehension from the politician. The young man knew that discrimination existed. He was an able young man, who was unable to find employment—and was desperate to find it.
  Prior to the Government taking office, a deaf person in my constituency found that his employers sold the business, when the new employers did not allow him an interpreter during the contract negotiations in which his hours and conditions of employment were reduced.
  There have been heroes in Westminster, such as Lord Morris of Manchester, Lord Ashley of Stoke, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the many other hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) named. They were heroes to us out there, and they still are. They made slow, but determined progress.
  When the previous Government—acting under duress—at last, and reluctantly, passed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to outlaw discrimination, they did not create a commission to enforce the law. The Act was a vehicle without an engine. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) did not gain much from sticking to his party rather than what he now says were his principles. He now has the double misfortune of being the Leader of the Opposition.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth)—as Under- Secretary —set up the disability rights task force, it was exceptionally welcome,

  1097
  not only in this House, but outside. It demonstrated the involvement of people with disabilities, and operated on the principles of inclusion and transparency. It involved people with different disabilities from different parts of the country.
  I welcome the fact that the task force has brought a new attitude to the legislative framework of this country; a positive attitude that is promoting the rights of disabled people. That is a significant change. It is a gentle touch that will allow people to work effectively to try to achieve the society that we want—but it is able to take effective action against those who do not share that aim.
  The Bill, which is receiving Government time, will be a vehicle by which many of the parts of the Government strategy can move forward. The new deal for disabled people will be supported by the Bill going through the House at the same time. It will open up fair opportunities to people with disabilities to gain and retain employment. It will be underpinned by guidance, good practice for employers and the ability to take enforcing action. We are not leaving disabled people to fight their own fights any more. They will have support from legislation.
  I welcome the decision by Ministers that training in disabled awareness for benefits advisers will take place. I welcome also the openness of the Departments to learning and good practice as part of the process.
  Ministers will know that I have met local organisations which work with disabled people in my constituency to discuss the issues. They asked me to raise the issue of education and gaining skills. In the past, too many people have not been able to achieve their potential because they have been excluded from educational opportunities. I hope that the commission will consider how to take that forward.
  Others issues are important, such as the development of an integrated transport strategy that is accessible for everyone. Consumer rights and labelling are also important, as many people with disabilities—and hidden disabilities—find it crucial to know the ingredients in what they are to eat. I welcome the way in which the Government have taken those things into account across different Departments.
  The commission will drive change. It has a style of inclusion and will involve people with a disability and those who have had a disability. They will have major representation. That is so important because, frequently, people with disabilities have been marginalised to such an extent that everyone knows what is best for them, and they are left to know how much they are excluded.
  Some things can and must change rapidly although we all accept that others will take time. The commission will play a key role working with people who misunderstand, are embarrassed by, or have not had the opportunity to learn at first hand about, disability. They do not know what the barriers are or how to take them away.
  The commission will work in a new way, solving problems through dialogue wherever possible, which is sensible and welcome. It will be very supportive of change. Many people want to make our communities inclusive and to address their own shortcomings but do not know how. It is about time that we gave them support.
  The commission will have to tackle difficult issues and it must be fully empowered to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood spoke about policing. I want to
  1098
  add my voice to his. We must ensure that all aspects of policing, including the operation of statutory functions such as arrest and surveillance, are applied fairly and without prejudice. That is crucial to our civil society.
  Some people with disabilities from time to time display symptoms that can make them look as though they are likely to cause difficulties and people can become disturbed by them. People with diabetes can sometimes appear to exhibit aggression when they are suffering from rapid blood sugar changes, and that can easily be misinterpreted. We must also give serious consideration to people with communication difficulties. They have not received all the support that they deserve from our police services.
  I have noted that the task force is to consider the extension of the legislation to cover statutory police functions. That is very welcome and many of us look forward to hearing its proposals. It is also welcome that the powers of the commission will include human rights issues relating to disability.
  The establishment of the commission must be effected so as to face the challenge of ensuring involvement and access for disabled people in all parts of the country. I know that Ministers will consider that seriously. I am confident that they will find a way of delivering, but they must ensure that people from every part of Warrington, as well as every part of Westminster, get access to the commission and to the opportunities that it will afford.
  The commission will be a radical engine for change. It will open up a lot of challenges and many of us will have to face questions with which we might not be comfortable, but it has to work effectively to fulfil the aspirations of hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities and the hundreds of thousands more who are perhaps only temporarily not disabled. I warmly welcome the Bill and I look forward to its taking effect.
  3.53 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) referred to personal experience and the human aspects as well as to the whole concept of the environment. We have not developed that sufficiently over the years, as our legislation for the built environment has often not been complied with when new buildings have been put up. There is no excuse for that, although I can understand some delays in modernising old buildings, some of which may not be as amenable as others to the work.
  I welcome the Bill as a further advance. I know that there have been criticisms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. At the time, some hon. Members wanted to vote against it because it did not give us everything that we wanted. Even today, it has been acknowledged that this Bill is merely one more step. We must go step by step and make progress towards further legislation.
  The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has come in for some criticism, but I must at least pay tribute to him for introducing the Bill that became the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He had not won the battle either with the Treasury or—dare I say it?—with the Northern Ireland Office. Northern Ireland was again excluded. In fairness, when we pressed the issue, he ensured that there was legislation for Northern Ireland.

  1099
  Fascinatingly, the only reference to Northern Ireland in the Bill concerns eligibility for membership of the House or of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It says that membership of the Disability Rights Commission is a bar to membership of either of those bodies. I am aware of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which the Minister and the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), my friend of long standing in this campaign, referred. I am not convinced that the same thrust of legislation is contained in that Act, bearing in mind that there is already a debate about whether one commission can deal with all the various aspects that are dealt with here by several commissions.
  When will Northern Ireland have a commission with the same powers as the commission in Great Britain? The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) will remember that in 1986 he promoted a private Member's Bill, of which I was one of the sponsors, but the legislation was not allowed to be extended to Northern Ireland. In 1989 I was fortunate enough to draw the 11th place in the ballot and we managed to pilot through legislation for Northern Ireland on that occasion.
  I remind the House that part of the declaration of human rights is that every citizen should have the same rights, so those in Northern Ireland should have all the rights that the citizens of England, Scotland and Wales have. People involved in disability needs in Northern Ireland have been consistent in campaigning for the Bill and in working to improve the lot of people with either overt or covert disabilities and seeking to give everyone the same standing.
  I trust that, if the legislation has to be effected by the Northern Ireland Assembly, which, unlike the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, does not start until the middle of 2000 at the earliest, we will not again be disadvantaging people in Northern Ireland.
  I welcome the Bill as a further step towards freedom for people with disabilities. From boyhood, I have been aware of disability. My mother's cousin—we called her Aunt Nancy—was blind. She worked in a workshop for the blind. She never liked living in the hostel for the blind. She was a beautiful musician, a singer and a pianist. My brother and I would meet her every Friday night to take her to our home. With the mischievous approach of boys, we could not understand how a person who could not see could get around. We regularly tried tricks on her. Sometimes we stopped short and sometimes we went past the house. Never once did she miss a beat. She was able to correct us and say, "A little bit further," or "You've gone past it."
  I have been aware of disability at other levels. Sometimes people do not realise that none of us is perfect and that we all have some measure of disability. It may not be noticeable now, but it might be before we get much older. That is the sense in which we must continue getting across to people the concept of disability. Original sin was mentioned earlier. It was not invented in the House, but it is sometimes still evident in the House, in the way in which we treat people who are different from us.
  We have spoken about the effect on employment and businesses of disability discrimination legislation. We in Northern Ireland do not consider it right that small businesses are excluded. When the matter was discussed previously, the employers forum was adamant that the
  1100
  legislation should apply across the entire sector, especially because in Northern Ireland, unlike other parts of the Kingdom, small businesses employ a much greater percentage of labour than large businesses. I hope, therefore, that if legislation is needed to cover those who should be employed in small businesses, it will be forthcoming.
  We recognise that there are certain jobs that certain people cannot do. Whether or not we have physical or mental abilities, some of us are not equipped to do certain jobs. We are not arguing that people should get a job because of a specific disability. We have acknowledged that we want the chair and the vice-chair of the commission to be appointed on merit. Some people with particular disabilities might outshine some of us who think that we are not disabled.
  I wonder to what extent the Bill will apply to Government Departments. I was glad to hear that Ministers had at last won the battle with the Treasury. That has been the problem all along. Step by step, money is to be released from various Departments. However, it is not right that we should wait another four years to deal with the supply of goods and services. That is where discrimination is often most severe, and I shall give two simple examples to illustrate the point.
  I recognise that the public purse, like all our purses, is not bottomless. Judgments must be made. I am thinking of a home that I visited last Saturday, for which we have been trying to get alternative heating for at least two years. One of the residents is 93 years of age and blind. The other, her sister, is 84 and suffers from severe osteoporosis.
  We finally won the argument that there should be alternative heating. The best would have been oil. We were told that that was not possible, but we have not discovered why. Only last week, the women were told that an application had been made for gas, but as there was no connection at the front of the house, they could not have gas. The women had never asked for gas, because the nearest gas supply point is more than two miles away. Those in the Housing Executive and the occupational therapy department are using such reasons for not supplying the alternative fuel that is needed to care for two folk who, in my judgment, deserve it.
  I think of another case in which an application had been made for the provision of downstairs accommodation, including a toilet, for a woman who had been healthy until about 10 years ago. For the past 10 years, owing to debilitation and loss of limbs, she has been confined to an upstairs room. I was utterly amazed to discover that the occupational therapist who was sent to examine the room tried to find ways of avoiding the provision of such accommodation —that is the kindest way that I can put it. It was only when my constituents argued the case that officials began to speak of criteria, which had not been mentioned previously.
  It seems to me that in both cases, the criteria were financial. If we continue to discriminate against our citizens because we claim that we cannot afford to meet their needs, the ablest in society will be allowing the weakest to bear the greatest pain. I am glad to welcome the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, so that it might get on with its work.
  I make one proviso, to which I alluded in my question to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). We all know that legal proceedings and appeals cost money. If a

  1101
  tribunal is set up, it must be paid for. For benefit appeals, no money will be available. If a person employs a solicitor, that must be at his own expense. People rely on the few solicitors who work for the public good, on trade union officials and sometimes on Members of Parliament, who try to help as a service to their constituents. We must be careful not to impose more costs on the system than the commission considers reasonable. The same clause allows for the assistance of a solicitor or counsel, and I cannot imagine many of them practising without pay.
  4.7 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: It was in 1988, at my first Labour party conference in Blackpool, that I first spoke to a large audience about the need for civil rights for disabled people. I believed then, as I do now, that disabled people would never be able to play their full part in society, never be fully accepted and never have equality of opportunity until we had equal rights with everyone else in society.
  In those days I had no idea that I would ever reach these heady heights. I had no ambition to seek election to this place. That was for other people, not for people like me. I saw my role in persuading others of the strong case for civil rights legislation, but it would be up to others to enact that legislation.
  Hon. Members can therefore imagine my pride in being in the Chamber today, speaking on the Second Reading of the Disability Rights Commission Bill, which will lay the foundation that will underpin the changes necessary to stop disabled people being treated as second-class citizens.
  I have left it to others this afternoon to discuss the need for such legislation—the flaws in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the powerlessness of the National Disability Council set up by the DDA, the need for a body that can take through the courts cases of discrimination against disabled people, and the need for good information for service providers and employers. Those are the academic arguments. There is an injustice in this country, and the Bill is the beginning of our efforts to right that injustice.
  What I can add to the debate is not based on intellectual argument or high-flown ideals. I can describe my experiences in day-to-day life that illustrate the extent of discrimination faced by disabled people, day in and day out. Let me give hon. Members some examples of how it feels to be at the receiving end of the ignorance and prejudice that exist. It is all very well to talk about things in the abstract, as we have been doing this afternoon. I hope that I can evoke for hon. Members some of our feelings.
  People who use a wheelchair become obsessed with toilets. On a number of occasions it has been difficult to find one, so I choose where I go carefully. Although I am blessed with a fairly strong bladder, thank goodness, on occasion it is important that there is a toilet. I remember some years ago when I went to a Chinese restaurant in my constituency. It was chosen because it had a disabled person's toilet. After a nice meal we went to the toilet, as one does after a few drinks or so. Imagine my surprise when I opened the door of the disabled toilet to find it full of furniture. Feeling a bit puzzled, I went off to
  1102
  complain. I found the manager whose reply was, "We're very busy. It's a Saturday night and you didn't tell us you were coming." Next time hon. Members book a table in a restaurant, imagine not only booking a table but having to say, "By the way, I might want to use your toilet." The farcical nature of that helps to illustrate the difficulty. I have found all sorts of things in disabled toilets. I think it was at the BBC Aberdeen that we had to shift out a barbecue and wellingtons a few minutes before I was to go on air so that I could go to the toilet. That is what can happen with accessible toilets, but imagine what it is like not to be able to get to the toilet at all.
  Then there was the time when I was standing for election to the council. I was standing in one ward in Brechin, where I lived at the time, and I had to vote in another ward. I arrived at the appropriate polling station wearing my big red rosette for the Labour party to find no other people wearing big red rosettes. All I could see were people wearing blue rosettes. There were three steps into the polling station. I was on my own. Consternation ensued. I realised that I had to swallow my pride and ask the Tories to carry me in. Luckily, they did this with a degree of good will. Brechin is a small town and I knew them well. Just to be on the safe side, I thought to ask the SNP to carry me out again. If hon. Members can imagine the indignity that disabled people have to face in being carried in and out of a polling station, they will get some sense of how awkward life can be.
  I have many such stories of what has happened to me. I wish also to show that such things happen constantly, so I shall give just two examples from this week. At the beginning of the week I arrived on the plane from Aberdeen and waited at Heathrow for the taxi driver to pick me up and bring me here. He had my name and knew that I was in a wheelchair. I was sitting waiting when a driver from the company that I use walked past me. Hon. Members can imagine the consternation of the complete stranger standing beside me when she was asked if I was Anne Begg. She was completely puzzled until I put the driver right. That happens all the time. For disabled people outside, it may be worth remembering that no matter how famous or well-known one thinks one is, all disabled people suffer from the "Does she take sugar?" syndrome. Constantly, complete strangers who just happen to be near me are asked by other complete strangers whether I can manage or not. These are small examples of how ridiculous the attitudes are that lead to discrimination against disabled people.
  My second illustration from this week concerns the census form that I received as part of the pilot census. I assume that all hon. Members know that there is to be a full-scale census in the year 2001. In some parts, a number of households have been chosen to receive the pilot census form. One duly arrived through my door and, being a good citizen, I filled it out. I came across a question that is obviously geared to judging how many people in Britain have a disability. The question is:
  "Do you have any long term illness, health problem or disability which limits your daily activities or the work you can do?".
  There is a yes and a no box. I did not think much about it, but got on and ticked the no box.
  My disability does not interfere with my job. I hope that I am as successful a Member of Parliament as anyone else in this House. I hope that I was as successful a teacher as any other. I am fairly sure that my right hon. Friend

  1103
  the Secretary of State for Education and Employment would also tick the no box indicating that he did not have a disability that limits his daily activities or the work that he can do. He is a successful Secretary of State and member of this Government, enacting worthwhile legislation. Who on earth, then, is meant to tick the yes box? Perhaps my mum should. She does not actually have an illness, a health problem or a disability, but she has never learned to drive. She relies on my father to drive her around. That limits her daily activities considerably. Perhaps she might tick the yes box, but she would not class herself as being disabled, ill or having a health problem.
  Several hon. Members in the House this afternoon, including me, wear specs. If we had a burning ambition to be a pilot or to do some other job that required Al sight, I am sure that we would all be discriminated against because we wear specs. In other words, that would be classed as a disability. Yet I do not suppose that hon. Members believe that they have a disability. Someone with specs might possibly tick the yes box.
  It is not the disability that is the problem. It is not my disability that stops me playing an equal part in society. It is the fact that some people have put steps in buildings, so that I cannot get into them. If there are two buildings side by side, one with steps and the other fully accessible, there are no limitations to what I can do in the fully accessible one, but I am disadvantaged and discriminated against if I want to get into the building with steps.
  We should never blame disabled people for problems that society has created. It is society that has created physical barriers and it is attitudes within society that cause the problem, not the disability. I hope that when the Home Office gets my letter of complaint, it will consider changing that particular question on the census. I am not sure how, but I hope that it will, in time for the census in 2001.
  The discrimination faced by many disabled people can have a far more serious impact on their life than the minor daily irritations that I have just described. While I face inconvenience, annoyance and frustration, I have been lucky to be able to overcome the barriers that could have seriously impeded my life. Eventually I became a teacher, although there was a doctor at the college of education who seemed hellbent on preventing me. I hope that I was a successful teacher, despite having a disability far more profound than it was when I first went to see the doctor as a 17-year-old.
  I have managed to lead an independent life. I have a car with a great machine that stores the wheelchair on the roof. In that way the barrier of a lack of transport and of motability has been overcome for me. Ultimately, I have been lucky to have been elected to this House, and that the attitudinal problems that exist in political parties and society as a whole did not count against me when I stood to be selected for Aberdeen, South. For the majority of people with disabilities, the barriers, both physical and attitudinal, are far too high to overcome. They are not in work although they could quite easily work. They do not lead a fulfilling life although there should be nothing to stop them doing so. We can only guess what talent goes to waste because of discrimination against, and lack of opportunity for, people with disabilities. Society would be richer if all citizens could play their full part in our society.
  1104
  We are never going to be happy; we will always look for more. I look forward to the time when I can visit all my constituents because all private dwellings are wheelchair accessible. That is a long way off, but we have made a start in changing part M of the building regulations in England and Wales—part T in Scotland. I look forward to being able to travel by train on my own without having to book ahead and a guarantee that the toilets will work— toilets again. I look forward to the time when I can take it for granted that if I go to a restaurant or pub, there will be a disabled toilet that I can enter without falling over furniture. I look forward to the time when every shop in Union street in Aberdeen is wheelchair accessible so that I get in and do my shopping like everyone else.
  I look forward to a time when I will not be called a wheelchair. The last time that it happened was in the embassy in Washington. A young chap said, "We'll get the wheelchair into the lift and the others can follow." I am afraid that I get very facetious in such circumstances, and say, "Why? Am I not going up too?" I could go on and on.
  Of course, it will take time. The Disability Rights Commission will take time to work through the discrimination that has always existed. This is the first step, the underpinning. Some Opposition Members probably did not realise that they were using the Scottish Labour slogan for the Scottish election campaign when they talked about going step by step. In my case, it should perhaps be move by move. We will eventually have full equality of opportunity and comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. The Bill is the basis on which we will build. Waiting for attitudes to change through gentle persuasion has not worked. The Bill will force the pace and help disabled people who wish to challenge the discrimination that they face daily. Disabled people like me welcome this Bill, which I urge the House to support wholeheartedly.
  4.23 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: I do not know what I have done to incur your displeasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must have done something to deserve punishment. How can I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg)?
  I welcome the Bill for several reasons. While the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is not worthless without such legislation, it is much devalued. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said, that Act has many failings, but the biggest failing was that it did not introduce a Disability Rights Commission. That view is now shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It certainly was not before.
  The Disability Discrimination Act made it illegal to discriminate against people with disabilities, but there was no real mechanism for doing anything about it. If a council, multinational company or Department discriminated against someone, that person could do nothing. Individuals cannot take on big organisations. People had rights but could not exercise them. Rights that cannot be exercised are not rights. People had rights in theory only. I hope that the Bill will mean that people have rights in practice.
  The Bill will not end discrimination against people with disabilities or change people's attitudes at a stroke. It will not be the final legislation on discrimination against

  1105
  people with disabilities, but it is a step in the right direction. It is important to recognise that. We struggled so long to achieve the Disability Rights Commission that we have almost started to regard it as an end in itself. People think that once we have it, everything will be rosy. That is not the case. Anyone who believes that we can forget about disability, relax and sit on our laurels because a Labour Government have introduced a commission is wrong.
  The commission is only the beginning. The Disability Discrimination Act was a step in the right direction, partly because it was much amended by the then Opposition, with the help of many disabled organisations. The Bill, too, is such a step. That is why I am not so concerned about some of the details. I see no compelling reason why employers should be outside the Act because they employ fewer than 15 people, any more than I could see a compelling reason for the figure to be 20. Legislation could be framed to include all employers. I am not too worried that that is not in this Bill.
  Similarly, I am not sure about the funding. I want to be persuaded that there is enough money to ensure that we do things properly. Introducing written agreements earlier seems sensible, but I am not worried if it is not in the Bill. Once the commission is established, it will be able to consider such things itself. It will help shape future changes by advising the Government on how to amend the Disability Discrimination Act and on what else needs to change. I fear that we could fall into the trap of trying to do the commission's job for it by putting everything in the Bill when such matters should be considered by it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood rightly said that the Disability Discrimination Act was designed on the hoof. I fear that we might end up designing the commission on the hoof. That would be a bad example to follow—although I can think of even worse ones. Hon. Members will remember how everyone thought that all the ideas for the Child Support Agency were great. There was not much debate, but it seemed sensible, so away we went. I may be thought over-cautious, but considered views from the commission before we move forward might be a good thing.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) quoted a part of the Confederation of British Industry brief that showed it to favour the Bill strongly. A few paragraphs on, the CBI expressed real concerns and seemed suspicious of the direction in which the commission was heading. We must do our best to dispel such mistrust. The legislation must work for people with disabilities, but it must also work for the rest of the community, including the business community. I am not apologising for the CBI, but if we can get consensus, it is well worth doing.
  I am particularly pleased that the commission will have a majority of disabled people on it. When I read that, it made me think of a few years back when, in another life, I was a county councillor. I was chair of the equal opportunities committee. I got involved in. a controversial problem. People will be amazed to learn that a deaf school would not allow the children to sign, even at playtime. The people who served the meals were told that the children had to keep their hands at their side. They were not allowed to sign to each other. I may be getting a little long in the tooth, but we are not talking about Dickensian times. It was just a few years ago. I went to a meeting
  1106
  called at the local Deaf Society by the parents of the deaf children, many of whom were deaf themselves. I heard them putting their views forcefully. They wanted their children to be able to communicate not just at school but back at home, with them. I also listened to the professionals saying why they did not allow the children to sign at the school.
  I came to one conclusion. If you want to know anything about deafness, ask deaf people. If you want to know anything about disability, ask people with a disability. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South has demonstrated that today with her speech. We cannot do better than listen to the people who know what it is like to live with the problems day by day.
  I am proud that a Labour Government have introduced a Disability Rights Commission with an enormous and powerful role. It will work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and promote equality of opportunity for them. It will assist people in taking cases forward. I agree with what the hon. Member for Maidenhead said about consensus. If we can work by consensus and conciliation, great, but the truth is that it is difficult to reason with prejudice. Prejudice defies logic. There will be times when we have to resort to the legislation. Individuals cannot do that on their own, without the help of the commission. The Bill is an enormous step forward. It will make it more likely that conciliation and voluntary agreements will work. People will know that there is a stopping point at the end.
  The commission will prepare codes of practice and guidance. It will arrange for independent conciliation. It will also provide information and support to employers and others. That has been a problem in the past. Some people discriminate just through ignorance. If there is better understanding of the problems, there will not be so much discrimination. I am pleased and proud that I am part of a Government who are making that possible.
  The hon. Member for Maidenhead annoyed me a little when she said that before the election the Labour party's view had been that there should be no small employer threshold. She implied that disabled people were disillusioned; that they felt that now the Labour party was in government its views had changed and that they felt let down. I do not believe that that is the case. In our 1997 manifesto, we said:
  "We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists. We support comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people against discrimination in society or at work, developed in partnership with all interested parties."
  Just before the election, I attended a disabled people's group, as a poor substitute for my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). I told them what the Labour party's policy was, and that we would introduce a commission. The members of the group were sceptical. It was a case of, "Oh, yes, we have heard this before. This is before the election. Wait until after the election." After the election, I still faced a fair amount of scepticism, because we could not legislate for everything in the first few months. There was a feeling in many disabled organisations that the legislation was never going to materialise.
  In the Labour party we used to have a real problem with what was called the militant tendency. That has well and truly gone now, but we sometimes have a problem with what I like to term the Monty Python tendency.

  1107
  Members of my party say, "What are you going to do about pensioners?" I say that we are trying to introduce half-fare bus passes, that we have cut VAT on fuel and that we have given them £100 towards their fuel bills. So they say, "Yeah, yeah, but what about nursery education?" I say that we are guaranteeing a nursery place for every four-year-old. They say, "Yeah, yeah, but what about schools?" I say that we are trying to cut class sizes. So it goes on. I am sure that the Monty Python tendency does not exist among disabled groups because they can see that since May 1997, the Government have set up the disability rights task force, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth). In some respects, my hon. Friend demonstrated his principles more than anyone under the previous Government by the tremendous decision that he made in reaction to what the Tory Government were doing to disabled people. We are making progress now with the Disability Rights Commission Bill. We are implementing new rights of access. We have extended the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to employers with 15 rather than 20 employees. We have announced £195 million for the new deal for disabled people.
  Mrs. May: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's points in response to my comments about disappointment among disabled organisations about certain aspects of the Government's policies. I suggest that he looks at the disability audit conducted by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation. In its general comment on its overall finding, it said:
  "Disabled people feel broadly pleased with the Labour Government's policy on civil rights, but are worried by welfare reform and by other issues which have less of a public profile."
  I did not see the hon. Gentleman at the disability organisations' lobby of Parliament in Westminster Hall before Easter. I apologise to him if he was there, but if he had attended he would have heard some real concerns expressed by disabled people about certain aspects of his Government's policy.
  Mr. Heppell: I was not at the lobby. Things may have been said there.
  Mr. Levitt: My hon. Friend will be aware that the RADAR' s audit was carried out almost a year ago.
  Mrs. May: No.
  Mr. Levitt: It was September. It highlighted issues of major concern to disabled people, many of which related to welfare reform. That was at a time when there were misleading press stories about welfare reform going round and before the Bill was published. If my hon. Friend was at the briefing meeting organised by the disability organisations yesterday, he would have found 99 per cent. satisfaction with the proposals as stated—and the 1 per cent. of concerns were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his opening speech.
  Mr. Heppell: I accept that many of the disabled organisations were concerned about what they perceived to be Government policy when we first came to power, but they have realised that the perception was not the reality. Disabled people are becoming better-off under a Labour Government.
  1108
  We have set up a £30 million fund to help disabled people who want to work and provided £375 million for social services to meet the needs of disabled children. We have introduced the disabled persons tax credit guarantees, with a minimum income of £150 a week, and the incapacity benefit safety net. The special educational action plan is supported by £55 million and we have abolished the means test for allowances for disabled students in higher education. I honestly do not think that anyone is going to say, "What did the Romans ever do for us?"
  I am pleased that the hon. Member for Maidenhead and her colleagues now welcome the Bill, but I will not allow them to rewrite history. That is what they are trying to do today. The reality is that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was brought in under protest. The Tories effectively crumbled because public opinion was so strongly against them—disability groups were fighting against them on a common front and the Labour Opposition gave them a fair amount of trouble almost every day. However, even when the Bill was finally introduced, every concession made by the Conservative Government had to be torn from them in Committee. The Bill that was originally published by the Tories was radically changed during the Committee stage as a result of the hard work of the Labour Opposition and, to be fair, that of Liberal Democrat colleagues.
  No one will forget the former Member for Sutton and Cheam and her machinations to try to destroy civil rights for disabled people. No one will forget the Ministers who effectively fell because of the blatant, political way in which they were prepared to use the issue of the civil rights of people with disabilities. Nor will anyone forget people such as my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood, for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, Lord Morris or Lord Ashley, who struggled for all those years.
  I conclude by returning to the point with which 1 started. The Bill is a step forward, but it is not the end. The DDA was a step forward and the Bill is a much greater step, but there is still a long way to go. Let us hope that the Government will take us along that road.
  4.42 pm
  Ms Linda Perham: Several of the speakers who preceded me have paid tribute to hon. Members who have campaigned on behalf of disabled people for many years. It was a delight to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg); she is a powerful example of the importance of disabled people being included in all aspects of life and society, and of the crying need to change attitudes. We listened with humility to her account of her experiences of discrimination; we are extremely fortunate to have her among us.
  I am pleased to give a warm welcome to the Bill, as other hon. Members have done. Its provisions will also please the many excellent organisations that work on behalf of people with disabilities in my constituency and in the London borough of Redbridge. My connection with disability groups goes back to my days of service as a member of Redbridge community health council in the mid-1980s. Since then, as a local councillor, especially as mayor of the borough in 1994–95, and now as a Member

  1109
  of Parliament, I have continually been reminded—as, I am sure, are all hon. Members —of the consistent and continuing commitment of everyone involved in campaigning for disabled people's rights, by contacts with, and visits to, many of the groups run by dedicated volunteers.
  I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the work in my own borough of the Redbridge Disability Association, the Redbridge Multiple Sclerosis Society, Redbridge Mencap, the East London handicapped adventure playground and the Redbridge Crossroads respite care scheme. There are many other examples of such groups and I am sure that there are similar groups in the constituencies of other hon. Members.
  Support for a Disability Rights Commission has come from many national disability organisations, a number of which have provided help and information to Members of both Houses of Parliament during the Bill's passage so far. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). There have been briefings from Scope, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Leonard Cheshire—which has an inspired head of policy in John Knight, with whom I have had the pleasure of working during several years—and the Royal National Institute for the Blind.
  My local area is especially fortunate in that some very active organisations for the visually impaired are based there; for example, the Ilford Blind Welfare Association, Focus for the Visually Handicapped, the Essex Voluntary Association for the Blind and the Guide Dogs for the Blind, which has its national headquarters in my constituency at Woodford Bridge.
  If not disabled ourselves by birth, accident or illness, at some time in our lives all of us have contact with someone who has a disability. My grandfather was blind in one eye from the age of 21 and completely lost his sight at the age of 64, shortly before he retired. My father and my mother-in-law have hearing difficulties, and my best friend died at the age of 34 from the effects of multiple sclerosis.
  The Disability Rights Commission will be a powerful champion to combat centuries-old discrimination against disabled people and the disgraceful denial of equal opportunities. As detailed in clause 2, the commission will encourage good practice, give advice to Ministers and to Government agencies, provide information and support, carry out research—that is most important—keep the DDA under review and, as has been mentioned, under clause 3, it will be able to conduct formal investigations.
  I want to touch on three matters of concern that may limit the potential benefits of the Bill to promote justice and fairness for people with disabilities. First, in relation to clause 2(4), although I accept the necessity for the commission to limit its claim on the public purse and to place a tangible value on the services and facilities that it provides, I am anxious that some disabled people might not be able to pay such charges. For that group, access to the full range of services and protections of the commission could be denied. That would run counter to the spirit of the Bill.
  Many disabled people are not in waged employment, although obviously I welcome the measures outlined by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his opening remarks
  1110
  to remedy that. However, many disabled people on a limited or reduced income, with extra costs arising from their disability, might find it extremely difficult to pay for facilities and services. I ask that a requirement be placed on the commission to consider those issues when its members develop a charging policy for the provision of services and facilities.
  The second issue relates to the recovery of expenses, covered in clause 7(2) and (3). Following the acceptance of principles supporting financial prudence and accountability, I support the need for the commission to recover the costs it incurs by providing assistance to individuals under clause 6. However, I am concerned that any financial benefit awarded to a complainant could well be lost under the powers proposed in clause 7(2) to recover
  "A sum equal to any expenses incurred by the Commission"
  as a first charge. For example, if a disabled person were to be awarded a sum of £1,000 for injured feelings, following a humiliating refusal of service in a restaurant, but there was a complicated defence by the proprietor resulting in costs to the commission of £ 950, the net benefit to the complainant would be £50. Again, that seems to run counter to the spirit of the Bill. I urge the Government to set a maximum limit on the level of costs that can be recovered, so that the benefits of any award to the complainant are preserved.
  The third issue relates to membership of the commission. I welcome the proposal that more than half the commissioners will be disabled persons or persons who have had a disability, as that will allow the commission and its activities to benefit from personal experience of disability. I am keen that that vital tranche of the commission's membership should be made up of people who have, or have had, personal experience of disability, as opposed to persons who are the parent or guardian of a disabled person, something that can be seen in the membership of both the National Disability Council and the disability rights task force. That will allow the personal testimony and experience of disabled people to guide, through their majority, the work and future direction of the commission. I support the bridges contained in the proposals for membership of the commission between those with and those without personal, individual experience of disability. Those provisions will bring together a broad force of joint experience and endeavour to make the commission work.
  As one who campaigns against age discrimination, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows well, I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, an equalities commission will be established to cover all aspects of discrimination. After all, a disabled person may also face discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or age. However, for now, it is my pleasure to support the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. It is yet another manifesto promise delivered by this Labour Government, who are determined to give disabled people the dignity that they deserve with comprehensive and enforceable civil rights.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I do not usually display euphoria about legislation —not even when a Labour Government introduce it—and I often find something I can carp or be grumpy about, or areas where changes can be made. However, I am enthusiastic about

  1111
  this Bill. I feel like a Manchester United supporter will feel after last night's result; or like a supporter of Sunderland, which I am, whose team has just won promotion, which it has. I feel like that because, now that this Bill has been introduced, 1 believe that we are— at last—getting there, just as Manchester United will feel that it is getting there because it has reached the final, even though it has not yet played it.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, the Bill is a crucial staging post on the way to wider ends. The end legislative goal must be full civil rights for disabled people, but, even when we have full civil rights for disabled people and a commission that works to enforce those rights, we will not have solved all the problems of discrimination. The legislative tools we use only enable us to begin the work. Nevertheless, the Bill represents a crucial step in the right direction; it is a measure for which I, and other hon. Members— especially Labour Members—have been arguing for a long time, and it is perceived as a key part of the development of fuller rights.
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has been mentioned repeatedly. That was an inadequate, restricting and grudging piece of legislation, although I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said about that Act's being changed fantastically as it went through the House. It turned out to be a far better piece of legislation when it left the House than it was when it was introduced, and a great deal has been done since to make the most of its provisions. Labour Front Benchers deserve credit for having acted on the existing measures so as to achieve the most that they could.
  Let us remember that the amendments proposed as that legislation passed through the House —especially the key amendment, which we knew would achieve the most, to set up the Disability Rights Commission—were opposed all down the line. Those amendments were opposed in Committee, on the Floor of the House on Report and in the House of Lords. It should not be forgotten that the person who was involved in running the campaign to block those radical changes to what became the Disability Discrimination Act was the current Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). At that time, he was the junior Minister piloting the Bill, and his promotion through the ranks of the Conservative party depended on his ability to deliver.
  The legislation had been introduced only reluctantly, because of trouble the previous year with the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which had been blocked repeatedly as it passed through it stages in the House. The following year, I was lucky enough to be able to introduce my own version of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. That Bill was eventually allowed into Committee, after all sorts of devices had been used to prevent its getting there. Although that Committee had a Conservative majority, I was able to suggest the appointment of certain Conservative Members who I knew would be willing to support the legislation. In fact, in Committee, more Conservatives sat on my side than sat with the current Leader of the Opposition. Most of the time, the right hon. Gentleman was joined in Committee by Tim Smith and Charles Hendry, who were Conservative Members of Parliament at that time.
  1112
  The Leader of the Opposition controlled the situation and ensured, almost single-handedly, that the measure did not return to the Floor of the House until it was too late. The right hon. Gentleman was then promoted and, when the legislation returned to the House on Report, we had 32 minutes in which to deal with about 108 amendments. Alistair Burt, who then had charge of the legislation, ensured that it was blocked. The Bill sought to establish a Disability Rights Commission. We always said that the power to establish that commission could be removed from the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and inserted in the Disability Discrimination Act, but that did not happen.
  I welcome the Opposition's new attitude and the contributions from the other side of the House that illustrate that considerable change of heart. However, we must deal with the Disability Discrimination Act because the measure before us is attached to it and shadows many of its terms and conditions. The commission will flower only when a Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill runs alongside it.
  Let us explore some of the shortcomings of the Disability Discrimination Act. It has a restricted definition of a "disabled" person which classifies disability in purely clinical and medical rather than social terms. Definitions should always work against the discriminator: we should seek to stop discrimination rather than excluding people who do not fit into certain clinical categories. The commission will be able to tackle that definition problem as clause 2 allows it to present us with measures on which we can legislate further at a later stage. It is a dynamic for change, and the commission can play an important role when it comes to definitions.
  The scope of the Disability Discrimination Act, limited by definition, was further restricted more specifically by the exclusion of certain areas. The commission must address that problem. The legislation as it first appeared before the House contained an incredible number of exceptions: almost every educational institution one could think of was excluded. The Bill was ultimately modified thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), but it had similar shortcomings in the transport area—for example, it was possible for disabled people to access railway and bus stations but not trains and buses.
  The Disability Discrimination Bill was not intended to apply to Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland Members of Parliament signed up to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and four Northern Ireland Members from different political parties—including the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), who spoke earlier—sponsored the Bill. As a consequence, the present Leader of the Opposition promised, upon its introduction in the House, that the measure would apply to Northern Ireland. That was the first change made to the Bill.
  The measure before us does not apply to Northern Ireland owing to particular circumstances in that Province at present. However, some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Belfast, South should be examined closely.

  Another major defect of the Disability Discrimination Act, which is directly remedied in the Bill, is that it did not make provision for enforcement agencies. The National Disability Council was an advisory body mainly

  1113
  stimulated into activity by Ministers. Luckily, this Government have put the council into action. As hon. Members have pointed out, the council did more than we imagined it would when it came out in favour of establishing a commission—the exact measure that we are debating today.
  Clauses 2 to 9 contain the practical measures on how the commission will operate. They may need to be topped and tailed in Committee in view of the many points that have been made in the debate. Those measures tackle the difficulties of enforcing existing legislation, so the Bill enables us to enforce inadequate legislation, but we must look to the future and seek to introduce adequate legislation.
  I have a great interest in Northern Ireland affairs, and it was appropriate that the improved Disability Discrimination Act was eventually enacted in the Province, where there has always been considerable commitment, across the political spectrum, to disability rights. The Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland because it will have an Equality Commission with a much wider scope. There is a problem in that there will be a delay in setting up that commission, but I know that the Assembly will not ignore disability rights.
  The records reveal that the former Northern Ireland forum had an important debate on disability and supported fully the establishment of rights for disabled people across the board. There will always be pressure within the Northern Ireland system to deliver those rights in the Province. We need to apply our minds to find out the quickest way to achieve that delivery.
  The Bill is widely welcomed by organisations of disabled people and their parliamentary allies. I like to view myself as one of those allies, which is why I am so enthusiastic about the Bill. Four hon. Members have attended the debate who took part in the Committee stage on my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. It is strange not to have Lord Morris here for this debate. He, too, was a member of that Committee. People have recognised those hon. Members who have been active on this issue.
  As I pointed out earlier, some Conservative Members also supported that Bill. However, other Conservatives Members opposed the adoption even of the Disability Discrimination Act, and thought that there should be no regulation. Some of them did not lose their seats at the last election. It is nice to see that they have been outweighed and outvoted within the Conservative ranks.
  I turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the Opposition spokesperson. We should not spoil the celebrations. There are objections to certain actions by organisations of disabled people, who are protesting about the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. They are concerned that disabled people will experience losses as a result of that legislation.
  The Disability Benefits Consortium, which comprises more than 250 groups, has already presented a mass lobby. To some extent, it has already pocketed the Bill. I think that it expected the Bill to be delivered at some stage, as things were moving in that direction. Statements were made at Labour party conferences and other forums which suggested that a Bill would be delivered. We are thankful that it is now before us. However, the consortium has moved on to other concerns and does not want to see itself being pushed back.
  1114
  It would be a disaster if we lost the good will of the disability movement, especially when it is clear that this Bill—and the hoped-for Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill— will not be the property of the Government or of Members and peers who are sympathetic to such measures. The Bill is the property of those in the disability movement who shaped it, campaigned for it and deserve it. When legislation passes through the House, including the Bill, certain people are only carrying the baton. Some of us have been proud to do it for short periods. So let us not have counter-productive measures running alongside the Bill.
  The principles of this fine Bill should be fully established. On minor details, we might need to amend the Bill in Committee. Let the important principles that influence the Bill influence also our attitude to disability benefits.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Tom Levitt: In the run-up to the 1997 general election, I was asked which of Labour's policies I was most looking forward to seeing implemented. I took a few minutes to think about my answer; the first matter to come to mind was capital for the replacement of Chapel-on-le-Frith infants school. However, that has been provided and it is in the bag. I am delighted to say that the new school will be open in September.
  Secondly, as a councillor who had served at all levels of local government, I wanted to see an end to the garrotting of local government. However, I took it for granted that we would do that as well. Accordingly, I thought again.
  Thirdly, as a parent, I wanted to see investment in health and a strong economy to see my family—my daughter—through the next generation. Was that to be my answer?
  I thought of all these things and weighed them. Having done so, I said, "No, the real touchstone of a decent, civilised Government would be putting into place comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people." That was what being in government and our purpose in being in this place meant to me.
  For several years before the election, I worked as a consultant to the Local Government Management Board, advising it on various matters. First, I advised it on how to make its services, information and local government premises accessible to people with sensory disabilities. Secondly, I trained its staff and others in deafness awareness in particular, and disability awareness in general. Thirdly, I was invited to address national conferences and seminars on the impact of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I must take some responsibility for slightly misleading councils because I had the idea that if I led them to believe that they would have to do more than what was required by the Act, I would be performing a much better service to disabled people in the long run. If councils have inadvertently done more than they have to under the Act, I make no apology for that.
  Over those years, I and others were fighting outside the House on these issues, as colleagues now present were doing in the House, along with Members of the other place. It was a wide and broad-based campaign. The history of the past few years has been dealt with fully. However, there were one or two milestones in my commitment to the cause which I want to relate to the House.

  1115
  First, it was 12 or 13 years ago when I first had a one-and-a-half-hour conversation with a person whose first language was sign language. I learned so much during that conversation. I discovered a new world—a new culture—that I did not know existed. In years to come, I learned not only sign language, but to work in the world of deaf people, which brought me great enrichment, and great knowledge and experience that I have wanted to use ever since.
  I particularly want to tell the House about a meeting in Manchester, at which 200 people came together as an American lawyer described the Americans with Disabilities Act and how it worked. That may appear to have been a normal occasion, but I was one of only six hearing people at the meeting. The American lawyer was profoundly deaf, as were almost all the people in the room.
  The lawyer gave his presentation in American sign language. An interpreter interpreted from American sign language into British sign language, and another interpreter interpreted from British sign language into spoken English, for the benefit of the small minority of us who could not cope with the demands of the language of that particular culture.
  That man—who was without hearing and without speech, and whose name I have unfortunately forgotten—was a highly successful advocate. He appeared in top courts and, every day of the week, represented hearing people before hearing judges and hearing juries. His deafness had been no barrier to his education, his profession or his success. Why, oh why, oh why—it has taken me two years to come up with that expression in the House —is not that same experience available for deaf people in this country? It would enable them to become top lawyers operating in the same environment as hearing and non-disabled people.
  On another occasion, I spent probably not more than half an hour mastering the finger-spelling alphabet used by deaf-blind people. A code, representing the letters of the alphabet, is spelled out on someone's hand and I learned it because I had been invited to dinner with a friend of a friend—a deaf-blind woman who, 10 years previously, had added profound deafness to the total blindness with which she was born. She had communicated in that way to barely a dozen people over the previous 10 years.
  That woman was strong, engaging, humorous, mentally agile and very able—even her dog was an expert on real ale—but, because she has neither hearing nor sight, some people would regard her as a freak. People such as her attract ignorance, disregard and disdain from the able-bodied majority in this country, who do not have the experience of disability to enable them to have the proper understanding that is required.
  Those are profound examples, but there are many less profound—perhaps more trivial —examples as well. The hearing aid of a deaf person who turned up at the theatre only to find that the induction loop was not working—although there was no sign outside to tell him that—would be effectively useless. He would miss out on the benefit of the performance and would not try again—he would stop going to the theatre on the basis of one experience.
  Someone who turned up to a council meeting, having said three weeks in advance that he required notes in Braille, only to be told on the day, "We have not got
  1116
  round to it yet. That facility is not available," would have his confidence taken away. "Why should I bother?" he would think to himself.
  I met a young man called Thomas last year, when he came to the House to speak to a Royal National Institute for Deaf People event. He had committed himself to education and to bettering himself through achieving qualifications. Thomas went to catering college and excelled, qualifying as a junior chef. He worked as a chef in a café, but people called him names, rejected him and did not include him in what was going on. This qualified chef moved to a burger joint to sweep the toilets. He had spent years getting qualifications, but ended up sweeping toilets because that was his only way into the catering industry—in a capacity in which people would accept him.
  All the examples I have given are real, but the situation is made worse, in some cases, when people try to help but get it wrong. I know of a council chamber in which, when the induction loop system was switched on, deaf people who used the T-switch on their hearing aids heard not only what was going on in the chamber, but what was going on in every committee room in the building. It was like Babel, and they had to turn their hearing aids off. The same council chamber featured not only fixed microphones for the induction loop system, which were very welcome, but low-energy light bulbs, because the council was committed to the environment. Unfortunately, the two systems were immediately next to each other on the ceiling, and when the induction loop system was switched on, all the hearing aids in the room would scream, making them completely unusable. The council decided not to change the light bulbs, because it was green to have them, so it had to abandon the induction loop system, on which it had spent thousands of pounds.
  There are people who cannot obtain jobs for no other reason than that they have a facial disfigurement. Others are not considered for promotion because they have difficulty speaking, although they may be the best qualified for the job involved. Some employers refuse to provide "reasonable accommodation": they refuse to lower a desk, or to provide a powerful magnifying glass or a flashing fire alarm. Such simple, inexpensive changes are not made because of ignorance.
  Ignorance of that kind was demonstrated a few months ago, when—as hon. Members probably read in the newspapers—a group of deaf people were evicted from a holiday camp because they were making too much noise. Deaf people experience that time after time. They are evicted from pubs because, apparently, people are frightened by the noises that they make, their gestures and the attitudes that they strike. But that simply is not true, as the managers of such places would know if they sat down and thought about it.
  We can understand why, in such circumstances, disabled people want to give up. They have been banging their heads against a brick wall; it is so much easier to curl up in a corner, and just wish that all the examples of discrimination that so many disabled people take for granted—because they experience them every day—would go away. The 6 million people who have disabilities are tempted to put aside any ambition, and to reject any opportunity that might arise to seek a well-paid job or, in some cases, any job at all. The same applies to

  1117
  the 8 million with hearing impairments, the 2 million with visual impairments and the hundreds of thousands with learning difficulties.
  Last year, Leonard Cheshire produced a book entitled "Access Denied: Disabled People's Experience of Social Exclusion". In the light of the figures that I just gave, is it not astonishing that, according to an NOP poll conducted for the book, 53 per cent. of people —including 61 per cent. of those under 35—say that they have no regular contact with disabled people? They do not work with them, live with them or meet them on a daily basis. A quarter of the population say that they feel awkward in the presence of someone with a disability.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) will control her temper when I reveal that one person in three believes that someone in a wheelchair is likely to be less intelligent than other people. Four out of 10 say that it is accepted that it must be pretty difficult, or even impossible, for someone with a disability to obtain a job, and three quarters say that, if they became disabled, they would expect their living standards to fall. The good side is that 55 per cent. agree that society does not allow disabled people to be useful members of the community, and only one person in five thinks that disabled people are already adequately protected against discrimination.
  Only this week, I read a report published by the Down's Syndrome Association entitled "You'll Never Join The Army". It provides the frightening revelation that one in four families with a Down's syndrome member has expressed great dissatisfaction about the attitude of medical staff. That publication contains some horrific stories. The report says that too many doctors regard people with Down's syndrome as sub-human and worthless. If one in four doctors give families that impression, what hope is there for the rest of us? How do we tackle that prejudice? How do we communicate the view that disabled people are people first and disabled second?
  Hon. Members may be aware that the Government recently employed a young man with Down's syndrome for an advertising campaign with the theme, "See the person, not the disability". In the advertisement, the young boy is called on as a substitute in a school football match, much to the consternation of his team's supporters. He scores the winning goal and becomes their hero.
  The Sun took that young boy to join Kevin Keegan and the England soccer team for a training session, and it devoted a double-page spread to the story. What I am about to tell the House will come as no surprise to those who know people with Down's syndrome. That story told of the happiness that the young man generated within himself and within others. It referred to the heights of his aspirations and his potential, and to the fact that there is no limit to what people like him can achieve.
  It is just as well that this is a Second Reading debate, because I have come this far through my speech without mentioning the Disability Rights Commission, but I shall now put that right. The commission is the teeth that were missing from the 1995 legislation. It was born in the Labour party manifesto, and it was then handed over to the disability rights task force, which produced a unanimous report last summer about what it thought
  1118
  should be in the White Paper. The White Paper was published in July and accepted everything in the report, and that is reflected in the Bill. That is a classic example of consultation working.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is not present at the moment. He said that the Bill is a good Bill, and that we should study it by all means, but that we should not clutter it with provisions that take away the freedom of the Disability Rights Commission to establish good practice, to decide for itself how it wants to change and to open itself up for review at a later date, so that we can see whether we are getting it right and make changes accordingly.
  The commission is to be a wise, approachable, reliable, loyal and powerful friend. It is to be a friend to disabled people, and it is to be a friend to employers, providers of goods and services and even—dare I say it—to Departments and Government agencies. Let us ensure that our own house is in order, so that we do not have the embarrassment of Departments or Government agencies having their hands slapped by the Disability Rights Commission. Perish the thought, but we must ensure that that does not happen.
  The commission is the centrepiece in a campaign to open hearts and minds to the possibilities that disabled people can offer to a free and open society. It is a symbol of the Government's commitment to end discrimination in employment, in access to information and in the provision of goods and services. It is the embodiment of our commitment to giving comprehensive and enforceable civil rights to a group of our fellow citizens who have been deprived of them for far too long, and who have suffered injustice as a result time after time. In my view, that is what we are here for.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. John Healey: I strongly support the Bill and welcome its arrival from the other place. As hon. Members have noted, it has had widespread support from disabled people and their organisations, because they had such a strong say in shaping the Bill through the disability rights task force. The work of the task force has given great strength to the plans for the commission in the Bill.
  I should like to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the present Minister for the Arts and former Minister with responsibility for disabled people. He oversaw the setting up of the task force, chaired it in its early days and led the unanimous, inclusive and innovative way in which it did its work. I also pay tribute to his successor, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who took up and continued that work.
  I am proud to be a Member of Parliament on the Government Benches when the Government are introducing legislation to set up the Disability Rights Commission. It delivers the commitment in our manifesto as part of introducing enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. The commission largely gives us enforceability. However, disabled people will still not have comprehensive rights, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities mentioned.

  1119
  It is difficult to overstate how important this development is for disabled people and disability organisations; it is historic. It is a landmark in civil rights legislation for the 8.5 million disabled people in Britain.
  When I first became involved in disability campaigning, more than 15 years ago, we had barely conceived of a Disability Rights Commission and had hardly dared hope for one. At that time, I had the opportunity to work with MIND, the privilege to work for the all-party disablement group in its Ashley-Hannam heyday, and the great pleasure to work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who pulled together and fought so hard for his Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
  In the early days, the all-party group was of inestimable importance in giving a voice to disabled people and their concerns. It was crucial to encourage growing political awareness and skill among disabled people and their organisations. Leading members of that group are in the Chamber and have contributed to the debate. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who is not here, but who I know will wish that he were.
  The work of the group over more than 25 years has laid part of the political ground for today's debate and, in particular, for the all-party consensus that now exists behind the Bill. I simply regret that the recognition that the commission is such an essential part of implementing disability legislation has eluded the Conservative party for so long.
  There is no doubt that the lack of a commission has imposed a serious limit on redress for disabled people who suffer discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act. There is no doubt that the lack of a commission has been a serious gap for those individuals, employers and service providers who have been looking for advice on how to implement legislation properly.
  Equally, there is no doubt that the advent of the commission will enable disabled people to gain greater equality of opportunity, greater access and greater self-determination. It will enable employers and service providers to gain advice, information and practical support to help them to understand and to implement anti-discrimination legislation.
  Having said that, the challenge remains immense. Discrimination against disabled people is long-standing, comprehensive and institutionalised. As my right hon. Friend the Minister reminded the House, our ultimate aims must be to remove discrimination, to challenge attitudes and to realise full civil rights for disabled people. The commission is not an end in itself, but a powerful means towards those greater ends.
  I should like to deal with two issues that will be central to the success of the commission's work, although they are not addressed directly in the Bill. The first is funding.
  Much has been made of comparisons between the budgets of the Disability Rights Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Disability organisations, in their various briefings and discussions with hon. Members, have stressed their concerns about the potential shortfall in the funding that has so far been budgeted; and
  1120
  I should expect no less. It is the duty and in the nature of interest lobbies to pocket what they are offered, and then to ask for more. The disability lobby is no different from any other lobby. It may be more effective, but it is no different.
  Ultimately, it may prove that the budget for the Disability Rights Commission is not sufficient. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister's statement that the budget is not set in stone, and his commitment that he and his colleagues will review it in the light of operational experience. I should tell him that that ministerial promise will be closely watched by hon. Members and by the disability movement. Nevertheless, while perhaps gently cautioning Ministers, we should also congratulate them. I know—and, in private, the disability lobby will acknowledge—that the budget allocated to the commission has been hard fought for and hard won.
  As I am laying down markers for the future, I should mention my second concern, which is the availability of technical support from the commission. The commission will have to ensure that such support and its other activities are available—not only regionally, but locally —to disabled people. For someone living in Wath, Rawmarsh or Dalton in my constituency, communication with or travel to a regional office based in Leeds or Newcastle, for example, can be just as difficult as dealing with a centre in London or Birmingham.
  The Government have said that the commission will be able to call on the support and expertise of local voluntary bodies, but, in areas such as Rotherham, voluntary sector activity remains underdeveloped, and we simply do not have local groups with the necessary experience or expertise. Therefore, we need the commission—directly, and in partnership with local authorities, training and enterprise councils and voluntary sector umbrella bodies—to invest in building that capacity to make the commission's work effective and available locally. I believe that this can be done, but it will take time and a determination to do so.
  In conclusion, I should like simply to underline the Bill's crucial importance, and the very widespread support that it has received. I should perhaps leave the final word to the all-party disablement group, which describes the Bill as
  "a crucial element of the Government's strategy to ensure `comprehensive and enforceable civil rights legislation at work and in society' for disabled people".
  5.33 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: We have had a very constructive debate, which started with the Minister making his speech in a spirit of good will. Although there has been just a tad of sniper fire from Labour Back Benchers, hon. Members who have been in the Chamber for the entire debate, as many have been, will have no doubt that there is a will in the House to ensure not only that the Disability Rights Commission is established in legislation, but that it is effective.
  An extremely important aspect of the debate, which has been dealt with by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, has been that the commission will have to work to meet the quite justified expectations of those who will depend on it, sometimes in circumstances that are critical in their lives.

  1121
  People with disabilities will need support if they have, in whatever way, to challenge the establishment. If they are to rely on the commission, as they should be able to do, it is incumbent on hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that, as the Bill is passed, we examine its detail and get that as right as we can make it. We should ensure that we do that for people with disabilities, who are the ones who will have to use the Bill's provisions.
  In opening the debate, the Minister said that the Government were about to start a three-year campaign of winning hearts and minds. I welcome that. However, Ministers will know that, very often, particularly when resources are scarce, it is difficult to know how to target a campaign that is rather broadly phrased. The Minister will be aware that sheer prejudice against people with disabilities—some of which is not based on ignorance—is the hardest thing to overcome. We must recognise that another generation will be coming along shortly on whom we must target our campaign, and we must make sure that the message is renewed.
  1 welcome the Minister's statement, but I hope that he will ensure that, however succesful he feels the three-year campaign has been, that will not be the end of it. I hope that there will be continuity and that whatever lessons are learned are used for future campaigns.
  There are many reasons for discrimination; sometimes it is just pure ignorance. In many cases, it is quite deliberate. It is important to try to understand and second-guess what motivates that prejudice if it is ever to be tackled to benefit people with disabilities.
  I do not know whether I shall be fortunate in being asked to serve on the Committee; I would like to do so. Many who have spoken from both sides of the House have raised issues about individual clauses of the Bill, which many of us would like to see examined in more detail. Therefore, it is not my intention to pre-empt the Committee's discussions. I take it from the body language of Ministers that they welcome that. I hope that they will listen not just to hon. Members, but to those important representatives of the various groups representing the disability organisations which have played a key part in this and previous Bills.
  The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was the first to pay tribute to the work of the many organisations with whom hon. Members have regular contact. I hope that there will be continuing dialogue involving Government Front Benchers while the Bill is in Committee. I will refer to some general points, in the hope that we can get down to the nitty-gritty in Committee.
  It is important that the funding meets the reality of expectations. As has been said, if there is insufficient money for the commission—particularly in the early years—there will be a problem. Welcome as it is that the Government have made a commitment of £3 million for the first year and £11 million for the following two years, the latter figure will be a reduction unless it is linked to inflation or unless the reality of the costs in the first year are examined in some detail.
  Will the Government propose a business plan for this commission in particular, rather than basing a plan on the work of other commissions? There may be lessons to be learned, but a proper business plan would be helpful, if only as a benchmark for years two and three in terms of the financial structure.
  1122
  The Minister for the Arts, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), has been mentioned several times in connection with the setting up of the task force, which has done a lot of preparation—which we commend. He and I had an exchange of correspondence at the beginning of the process, as I was particularly concerned that people with learning disabilities should be represented on the task force.
  Ministers must look carefully at the definition of disability as it will be applied by the commission. It is my understanding that the definition in the 1995 Act will be used. That Act defines disability as
  "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
  That is perfectly reasonable, but I seek some clarification.
  The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) mentioned epilepsy and the Minister said that the definition would encompass it. That is welcome, but I wonder whether it is the Government's intention to produce a list of conditions, such as epilepsy, that are to be considered as disabilities under that definition. If so, what are the criteria under which organisations would have to make representations for conditions that are not on the list to be considered for inclusion?
  I have a special interest in learning disabilities and developmental disorders. I know that it is a grey area. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) mentioned Down's syndrome. That, along with cerebral palsy and autistic spectrum disorders, is a condition regarding which people in the medical profession might sometimes be at odds with one another as to whether it could medically be regarded as a learning disability. The benchmark that they tend to use is an IQ test; if the individual concerned has an IQ of more than 70, it is not necessarily defined as a learning disability.
  We can all think of many people who could be medically diagnosed as having an autistic spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome who have very high IQs. Some have good university degrees. That does not mean that their ability to carry out normal day-to-day tasks, as per the 1995 definition, is not impaired. They have real needs that must be met.
  People with such conditions who have good qualifications or are articulate in many ways might find real difficulties in applying for or holding down jobs. If the Minister is to produce a definitive list, we must not have people on the commission who do not understand the areas of disability that do not fit neatly into compartments. Such areas would be involved in some of the most difficult cases that I would certainly want to be referred to the commission.
  How is the list to be drawn up and how can it be changed from time to time as different diagnoses and conditions are recognised? Will the individual doctor with care of the disabled person have to give consent? Many of the people to whom I have referred have a real battle with their own GPs or hospital consultants and are not properly diagnosed until a specialist with lifelong experience in dealing with their conditions becomes involved. Only then does someone in the medical profession understand the read-across of the diagnosis and the way in which it is likely to impact on someone's day-to-day life. I hope the Minister accepts that definition is important.

  1123
  Equally important are the people who will work for the commission and deal with such cases. We discussed whether the chair or the vice-chair of the commission should be a person with a disability. I agree with what has been said on both sides of the House. I am sure that there will be no difficulty in finding people to fill those posts on merit. That should not preclude the possibility that both may be people with a disability. We still speak in terms of one or other having a disability, but if we are serious about equality, we should recognise that the two best candidates interviewed for the posts of chairman and vice-chairman may both be people with a disability. I hope that we will eliminate tokenism. Like other hon. Members, I know from experience that many of the principals who represent the charitable sector are extremely able people who, I am sure, will be lining up for the jobs. There will be no shortage of candidates.
  On the day-to-day administration of the commission and the technical support required, can the Minister give me an assurance that there will be on-going training for people working for the commission across a range of disabilities? I know that the Minister received many representations about the task force. He struggled to persuade everyone who had an interest in the composition of the task force that every conceivable disability would be represented. I understand that that was an impossible task, but it did not stop me or others making representations to him.
  Although a high percentage of its members will be people with disabilities, the task force will not necessarily be able to make a judgment on every case that comes before it. There must be a proper on-going training programme. Has the Minister considered who the commission will be able to call on, when necessary, for professional information about a particular disability? Some disabilities are quite rare. A constituent of mine is one of only 28 people in the country with a rare condition. However good the training, it would be impossible for the commission to make a clear judgment on such a case. Moreover, there are only a few people in the country who specialise in that condition. I hope that the Minister will consider such practical aspects of the commission's work.
  There has been much discussion today about the difficulties of people who have been the subject of prejudice and discrimination. We heard first-hand accounts of such experience from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and others.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) was anxious that the commission should comprise people with disabilities and professionals. She warned against filling the commission with parents, for example. However, some of the strongest advocates of people with disabilities are parents. That does not mean that they know better than the person with the disability, but the discrimination is not always directed against the person with the disability. Service providers sometimes direct such discrimination against those who have responsibility, but the person with the disability suffers just the same.
  Although I do not want the commission to be packed with advocates and parents, rather than people who have disabilities and can offer valuable first-hand experience, I hope that the experience of the advocate and the parent will be welcomed and used by the commission. Those people have considerable experience. Over the years they have stood up to the establishment—social services, doctors, hospitals, the Benefits Agency and so on. They
  1124
  have already gone a long way down the road of championing the rights of people with disabilities. I hope that we will not feel that they are tiresome, interfering busybodies, but that the commission can call upon their expertise and will welcome them in a measure proportionate to the contribution that they can make.
  Ms Perham: I do not want to give the impression that the experience of parents is to be denigrated. More than half of the commission is to be made up of people with disabilities and I wanted to highlight their experience. With the best will in the world, the parents are not suffering from the disability, however great their experience of looking after the person with the disability. I meant no disrespect to parents and I pay tribute to them for the work that they do on behalf of their children.
  Mrs. Browning: I do not want to get this out of proportion. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that sometimes it suits the establishment, if I may use the expression, to sideline the parent or advocate in order not to provide what the person with the disability needs. Unless the parent or advocate is prepared to stand their ground to get an issue sorted for the person with the disability, it does not happen. That is why I am making a case on their behalf. When they fight a battle on behalf of that person they suffer the pain, too, when the discrimination is obviously in front of them. I am sure that we can deal with that in more detail in Committee.
  A further important part of the Bill concerns the conciliation of disputes and I welcome it. Many people have, rightly, welcomed the tone of the legislation, which seeks to facilitate disputes being sorted out on a conciliatory basis. That is important, not least because the individual who is discriminated against does not always want to go to the wire. It can add to their stress and subtract from their quality of life to be involved in litigation that may run on for months and sometimes even years. Litigation is not pleasant for anybody to go through and it is even less so for somebody who is trying to get fairness and equality in their life and who contends with pain and distress in other ways.
  At the end of the day, it is right that the Bill gives the commission the statutory powers that it may have to use in the few cases—we hope it will be only a very few— where it needs the support of the legislation if the other measures do not work. That is welcome.
  I wish to press the Minister on the provision to claw back the commission's expenses when a settlement is made, including an out-of-court settlement. As I understand it, the costs of the commission in championing the cause of an individual would be clawed back if there was a settlement. I know that the matter was mentioned in the other place during the Bill's passage. Bearing in mind the representations of the other place, what are the Minister's thoughts not just about the itemised account of genuine costs when costs have been awarded, but when costs come from a sum that has been clearly identified as compensation? The Minister shakes her head. I hope that I can interpret that to mean that there would be no attempt to recoup those costs. That is welcome. For those who may find themselves in a position where those costs must be met, what plans are there for the commission to produce in advance a tariff of reasonable charges? Will there be any guidance to the commission on what is chargeable on an hourly or a daily basis? That is necessary

  1125
  to ensure that there is no further dispute about the costs awarded or what the commission may claim as legitimate expenses in such cases. There could be many horrible disputes over that unless what the commission can charge is clearly defined. Other professionals such as solicitors can outline what charges may be expected in their work. It is important to deal with that up front rather than when cases start to appear, to avoid further challenges about how much of the money should be used and whether expenses are legitimate. It is important for the commission, in terms of auditing procedures, that a tariff of reasonable charges is considered and made known in advance.
  We had some sniping from the Back Benches, which I take in good spirit. I want to share with the House a few words from Hansard::
  "We are trying to give disabled people civil rights and opportunities consistent with those of other citizens and to establish a mechanism, through a commission, to deal with discrimination."—[Official Report, 26 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1160.]
  That may not come immediately to hon. Members' minds because I said it the year after I was elected. The year after that, I was pleased to support the hon. Member for Kingswood in his private Member's Bill. It might be useful for new Members to know that when I voted for it, I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State for Employment. I fully expected to receive my notice to quit next morning. It did not come.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Unfortunately.
  Mrs. Browning: Unfortunately, I was still in a job and went on to become a Minister. I hope that that story will give heart to new Members who think that always doing what the Whips want is the way to get on in the House. The Whips look furious with me. I hope that I have confounded that myth, because I was passionate about this issue when I came into the House. I hope that I have demonstrated that today. I wish the Bill godspeed and every success.
  5.58 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): This has been a thoughtful, high-quality and sometimes moving debate. The Government's proposals have been warmly welcomed outside the House by disabled people, businesses and the wider community. Of those who responded to our White Paper consultation, 94 per cent. supported our proposals on the role of the commission.
  I am delighted that our proposals have received such strong support from hon. Members on both sides of the House. In opposition, we argued for such a commission to give force to civil rights legislation. In government, we can now legislate to fulfil our manifesto promise. In so doing, we shall not only be able to support disabled people in exercising their basic rights but help business to benefit from the contribution that disabled people can make as employers and customers. Several Government and Opposition Members raised significant issues. In the upper House, the Government listened carefully to some
  1126
  persuasive arguments. When persuaded, we adopted proposals to improve the Bill. That will be our approach as the Bill moves through this House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) painted a compelling picture of her personal experience and the day-to-day discrimination that she faces. I share her longing for the day when she can get into the toilet without having to negotiate a barbecue. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) also welcomed the Bill and said that he felt like a Man United supporter; as an Arsenal fan, I cannot say that, but I am, as he is, euphoric about the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) paid tribute to the all-party disablement group, and I join him in those tributes. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made a moving speech. I congratulate him on the work that he has done within the House and outside, especially on behalf of deaf people and those with hearing impairment.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said, this is but the first step in developing comprehensive rights for disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) talked about her worry about recovery of costs. I assure her and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that there is no proposal to take costs from awards. It is where costs are awarded against someone else that that matters.
  A number of hon. Members asked about the chair of the Disability Rights Commission. It is inconceivable that the first chair will not be a disabled person, but as hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, it would be wrong to put that in the Bill. I hope that the members of the commission will represent a broad range of interests, but even if not, 150 people or so will work for the commission, and they will be able to work on behalf of disabled people.
  Of course we want to work with business, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said we should. We will work best in co-operation rather than by using compulsion to implement civil rights. It is for that reason that we have taken steps such as introducing written agreements to create an easier flow towards civil rights in employment or the supply of goods and services, and introducing non-discrimination notices. I hope that, during proceedings on the Bill, we can deal with many of the detailed issues that hon. Members have raised today.
  I have to say to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) that we did not set the threshold for the small firms exemption. We inherited it. That was one of the problems. It was the legacy from which we had to start. We have grasped the opportunity to change the process for reviewing the threshold so that it can be reduced more swiftly. There is general acceptance among Labour Members that over time we want to see an end to discrimination against disabled people, whatever the size of the business in which they work.
  The subject of funding has been raised by many hon. Members today, including the hon. Member for Maidenhead, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), the hon. Member for

  1127
  Winchester and my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth, who said that the disability lobby would of course always argue for more.
  The estimates that we have presented are provisional estimates within the three-year settlement from the Treasury. We will review them as we proceed with the Bill, but they are a fair settlement and I think that we have got it about right.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale raised the issue of funding for information technology. As other hon. Members have said, we are the first Department to put papers such as those from the disability rights task force on the internet. That has excited a lot of discussion and debate on the proposals, and that is a way in which we wish to proceed in the future.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised some issues relating to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has its own Equality Commission, but that does not mean reduced rights for disabled people there compared with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. We intend that they should have the same rights. In response to concerns raised by disability organisations, we made significant amendments to the legislation. As a result of that, the Equality Commission may establish consultative councils to provide advice on aspects of equality.
  Several hon. Members raised the flaws that we know exist in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including the hon. Member for Winchester, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood, for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth) and for North-East Derbyshire. We are currently addressing many of those issues of principle in the disability rights task force, and we will report towards the end of the year, but rights of access to education and transport and whether the police should be subject to disability discrimination legislation are live issues on which we will return to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South made a moving speech, in which she described the Disability Rights Commission as the engine to the vehicle that was established by the Disability Discrimination Act. I was pleased that she welcomed the new deal for disabled people, which I consider an extremely important component of our legislation.
  This is a momentous day for disabled people. For far too many years, they have campaigned within their communities, through the media and in both Houses of Parliament for their own commission to defend and promote their civil rights. They have not been asking for a lot —simply for the opportunity to enjoy those basic rights that every able-bodied person takes for granted. Like other Labour Members, I feel shame that this House has not seen fit to support the many Bills that were debated in Parliament and which could have created a disability rights commission. We should never have delayed so long.
  At the same time, I feel privileged and proud to be a member of the Government who have acted with both speed and thoroughness, and who are seizing this early opportunity in government to create the Disability Rights Commission. In our manifesto, we said that we would support comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. By introducing the Bill, we are doing just that. We are creating a body whose prime duty will be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against
  1128
  disabled people. That body will be independent and well-resourced, and will have tough duties and strong powers. It will be able to take action on behalf of individuals who have been at the sharp end of experiencing discrimination. It will work with employers and suppliers of goods and services to help them develop policies and practices so that disabled people are treated fairly and justly.
  However, it will be a body that can insist, through the judicial processes, that those employers and suppliers of goods and services who are resistant to change cease to discriminate against disabled people. It will promote good practice, disseminate effective guidance and information, and prepare statutory codes of practice. It will advise the Government on the workings of disability discrimination legislation and recommend changes. It will be powerful and will be a crucial element in the wide range of levers that we have developed to promote civil rights.
  The Government are driven by the principle that economic prosperity and social inclusion are not competing aims, but are inextricably linked objectives. We can never sustain a successful competitive economy if we allow large sections of our community to be excluded by discrimination. Our proposals in the Bill are guided by that underpinning principle. We need the Disability Rights Commission to ensure that civil rights for disabled people are protected by powers of enforcement.
  We are not arguing that a commission is enough in itself. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities said in his opening remarks, the proposed commission is not the whole journey. Here again, I am proud of how much we have achieved after less than two years in government. We are implementing the remaining provisions in part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, because we know that they will bring important advances in terms of disabled people's access to goods and services.
  We have reduced the small employer threshold, which has given protection from employment discrimination to a further 70,000 disabled people. I am working hard with colleagues representing disability organisations and with other interested parties—from business, the trade unions, local government and the regions—on the task force to introduce proposals across the whole range of relevant activities to promote further civil rights.
  However, unlike the previous Government, the Labour Government are not waiting for legislation before we act. Throughout Government, we are acting now to enhance the opportunities and rights of disabled people. As some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, we have introduced new building regulations for the construction of new dwellings; that will benefit 10 million people. We have successfully negotiated with transport operators so that from January this year all new trains will be accessible, from January next year all new single-decker buses will be accessible and from January 2002 all new double-decker buses will be accessible. Consultations on proposals for taxis are currently under way.
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has initiated a pilot study and has appointed some visually impaired magistrates. In the Department for Education and Employment, we have been strongly promoting rights for disabled people in both education and employment.

  1129
  We have thoroughly reviewed special educational needs and we are investing £60 million for children with SEN. That will bring greater equality of opportunity at school in an inclusive environment, where that is appropriate. We are hugely expanding further education and higher education, with an emphasis on widening participation, improving the accessibility of our education buildings and enhancing access and support. Our benefit reforms, the £ 195 million made available to a new deal for disabled people and the extra £30 million we have secured to expand the services which support disabled people in work are all vital steps in providing those disabled people who can work with the opportunity to do so.
  The Government are taking comprehensive action in pursuit of comprehensive rights and we are achieving creditable and important progress, but we know that there is much left to do. If we are to embed justice and fairness, we need to challenge the many preconceptions, the ignorance and the sheer prejudice that still prevail. That cannot be achieved through legislation alone, nor can we achieve it through Government action alone. We need to work with others in business, in the disabled organisations, in the trade unions and in the community. We need to employ every lever available to transform attitudes and eliminate discrimination.
  That is why we are working in partnership with others to launch an extensive campaign that aims to reach people's hearts and their minds. We hope that the Disability Rights Commission will take over that campaign. We want to confront prejudice, so that disabled people are recognised for their abilities—for what they can do and for the contribution that they can make; so that we understand that they have the same hopes and fears, loves and hates, ambitions and talents and qualities and faults as the rest of us; so that we see the person and his or her abilities and enable disabled people to play a full and equal part in our society.
  Today's debate represents the fruit of many years of hard work by many people. I would like to pay particular tribute to Alf Morris and Jack Ashley, both of whom are now Members of the House of Lords, to my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Derbyshire and for Kingswood, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and to my predecessor, now Minister for the Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth). They have all campaigned tirelessly on behalf of disabled people. I also thank the members of the National Disability Council and the disability rights task force for their work and support in developing the Bill's proposals.
  The Bill has wide support from disabled people and from business leaders. It is our job to ensure that, if it passes through the House, we bring its provisions promptly into effect. For my part, I want the Commission
  1130
  to open its doors for business in April 2000. When they were in government, the Conservatives argued that creating a Disability Rights Commission would provoke a backlash by providing "well meaning, but inappropriate advice". I am glad that they are now on the road to Damascus —1 only hope that there will be accessible lavatories on that road.
  How can the Opposition say that we do not need a commission to enforce civil rights? Tell that to the blind customer who went to a well-known hi-fi shop and wanted to pay for the goods by credit card; he was asked for confirmation of identity and the manager suggested that he produce a driving licence. How can they tell the man with mental health problems who prefers to explain the gap in his employment history by saying that he was in prison rather than admit to an episode of illness that we do not need a commission to enforce his rights? How can they tell the group of learning-disabled people who were thrown out of a pub because the landlord thought their presence would damage his trade that we do not need a commission to enforce their rights? We do, and the Labour Government will enact one.
  The Bill is at the heart of our wider agenda to achieve an inclusive and fair society. Disabled people have waited a long time, and they should wait no longer. 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).

  DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION 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 Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State attributable to the Act.[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  AIR TRANSPORT COMPETITION RULES
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8582/97, including two draft Council Regulations, one amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3975/87 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector, and the other on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreement and concerted practices in the sector of air transport between the Community and third countries; and endorses the Government's approach not to support the Commission proposal.[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
  That the Draft of Alterations to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which was laid before this House on 25th March, be approved.
  ROAD TRAFFIC
  That the draft Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.

  COMPANIES
  That the draft Local Authority (Stocks and Bonds) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of their approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1999–2000 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1999–2000 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Mr. Lawrence Home
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  6.15 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in the House this evening the case of my constituent, Mr. Lawrence Horne, his experience of the Hague convention on child abduction, and the lessons that that constituency case presents for the application of the convention to this country and to other signatories to it.
  The Minister will know that this sort of case inevitably involves family tragedy and much personal heartbreak. I know that, in responding to the debate, he will be aware both of that fact and of his duty to explain the Government's policy and the workings of the convention as a matter of public policy.
  Mr. Lawrence Horne first came to see me about the abduction of his son some 18 months ago. Robert Horne is now three years old; his father is British and his mother is Portuguese. Robert is a British citizen born in Portugal: his certification as a British national was required when his birth was registered in that country. In May 1996, the family moved to England. Sadly, there were difficulties in the marriage, and Robert's parents separated in November 1996 when his mother took Robert from the family home to live with her. Divorce proceedings commenced in the English courts and, as is customary, the courts would have been involved in deciding about the care and control of Robert.
  In the meantime, while divorce and care and control decisions were pending, the English courts granted my constituent Mr. Horne regular access to his son. The confidence that the courts demonstrated in Mr. Horne's wish to exercise fully his rights and responsibilities as a father can be seen in successive decisions by the county court to grant him increased regular access. Those decisions culminated in August 1997 in a ruling by Slough county court to grant Mr. Horne continuous access to Robert each week from Wednesday at 5 pm until Saturday at 5 pm.
  However, in the same month, Slough county court allowed Mrs. Horne to take Robert for a holiday to her native country of Portugal. At the time, the court stipulated that the holiday should be no more than five weeks maximum in duration. Mrs. Horne did not return from that holiday, and she has held Robert in Portugal ever since, in defiance of repeated court orders made by Slough county court. The first of those orders was made in October 1997, and the matter was reviewed in March 1998, July 1998 and, most recently, March this year.
  In October 1997, when Mrs. Horne failed to return within the time stipulated by the county court, Mr. Home alerted the child abduction unit in the Lord Chancellor's Department, which then initiated proceedings under the Hague convention and alerted the central authorities in Portugal responsible for the enforcement of the convention to the nature of the case. In Portugal, Mrs. Horne commenced proceedings to secure custody of Robert under Portuguese law.
  On 30 October 1997, the Portuguese courts gave interim guardianship to the mother, despite articles 16 and 17 of the Hague Convention explicitly providing that that

  1133
  should not have been done, and that the initiation of proceedings under that international convention should rather have led to a stay in any proceedings commenced in Portugal. In his letter to me of 10 March 1998, the Minister expressed concern about that action by the Portuguese courts.

  One of the main points of the Hague convention is that it exists to allow such distressing tug-of-love cases to be settled quickly so that there is the minimum possible disruption to the life and routine of vulnerable children at an early stage in their life. That objective of the Hague convention has certainly not been secured in this case. First, the Portuguese courts asked for a copy of a commentary on the convention by Professor Perez. They then asked for a translation of that commentary into Portuguese. When that was eventually done, they requested a social inquiry report into Robert's life style with his mother and her family.
  In October 1998, a full year after the convention proceedings were initiated, the Portuguese family court finally came to a decision. Much to the horror and distress of my constituent and his family, the Lisbon court decided that Robert should not be returned to this country despite the UK court orders requiring his mother to make sure that he was returned and despite the clear intentions of the Hague convention.
  In its judgment, the Lisbon court cited article 13(b) of the convention, declaring that to return Robert to England would be to put him in an intolerable position. The court declared that he was settled in Portugal, and referred, as one of the reasons for its judgment, to the fact that an interim custody order had been granted by the Portuguese courts to Mrs. Horne. On my reading of the convention, the citation in the judgment of the interim custody order seems to be a clear and flagrant breach of the clear duties imposed on Portugal by articles 16 and 17 of the convention. As the Minister's Department knows, my constituent has sought to appeal against that first decision by the Lisbon court.
  I am afraid that my dealings with Mr. Horne and my experience of his case have led me to have serious doubts about the effectiveness of the convention. The House will know that those doubts are shared by others and have, for example, recently been expressed by Lady Meyer, the wife of Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington, and prompted considerable coverage in the national media.
  The language of the convention is perfectly clear. Article 1 states:
  "The objects of the present Convention are£ to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and£ to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States."
  That article has been breached in this case.
  Article 2 states:
  "Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to secure within their territories the implementation of the objects of the Convention. For this purpose they shall use the most expeditious procedures available."
  It appears to me, from my experience of the case, that article 2 has also been breached.
  1134
  Article 3 states:
  "The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where£ it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention".
  There is no doubt that young Robert Horne was habitually resident in the United Kingdom immediately before his removal to Portugal. There is also no doubt that the English courts had determined that Mr. and Mrs. Home were to share the rights of custody under the law, pending the resolution of their divorce proceedings and a final judicial decision in this country about what should happen to their son.
  It has always seemed to me that the purpose of the convention is to avoid long-drawn-out and traumatic battles over children. However, it has failed my constituent in that respect. Surely the purpose of the convention also is to prevent any party from gaining an advantage in an application for care and custody by abducting a child to another country. Once again, it seems that the convention has manifestly failed my constituent.
  I appreciate the constraints which the Minister is bound to observe in commenting in detail on judicial proceedings that are still under way. However, I hope that he will be able to offer some words of hope and comfort to my constituent to the effect that the Government will do whatever lies within their power to help Mr. Horne to secure the rights that he believes he is given under the convention to which both the United Kingdom and Portugal are signatories.
  I hope also that the Minister will be able to refer specifically to the questions of parental access and legal aid, which are covered in the text of the convention. I deal first with access for Mr. Horne to Robert pending the final outcome of proceedings within Portugal. Article 7(f) of the convention provides that there shall be a duty upon the central authorities of the signatory countries not only to initiate or facilitate the institution of proceedings
  "with a view to obtaining the return of the child"
  but
  "to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access."
  More is said about that principle in article 21, which states:
  "The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfilment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject."
  The convention states:
  "The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights."
  It adds:
  "The Central Authorities, either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organizing or protecting these rights and securing respect for the conditions to which the exercise of these rights may be subject."
  Mr. Horne has more than once made application to the Portuguese central authorities for assistance to him in having access to his son. That access has never been granted and my constituent tells me that the Portuguese authorities have never acknowledged his repeated requests.

  1135
  The articles of the convention impose clear duties on the central authorities of signatory countries. I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department, as the relevant authority in the United Kingdom, will bring appropriate pressure to bear on the Portuguese central authorities so that Mr. Horne is able once again to have access to Robert, the son whom he loves a great deal and whom he has not seen since the autumn of 1997.
  According to the text of the convention, legal aid involves duties on the part of the contracting states. In article 7(g), the convention requires that the central authorities should
  "provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers."
  Article 25 states:
  "Nationals of the Contracting States and persons who are habitually resident within those States shall be entitled in matters concerned with the application of this Convention to legal aid and advice in any other Contracting State on the same conditions as if they themselves were nationals of and habitually resident in that State."
  My constituent informs me that, once again, he has received neither acknowledgement nor action from the Portuguese authorities with regard to his repeated applications for legal aid, as provided for by the convention, within that country. I hope that the Minister can tell me what his Department can do to bring appropriate pressure to bear on the Portuguese central authorities.
  It is ironic that, although my constituent has apparently been unable to obtain assistance in Portugal, his wife, who is holding Robert Horne in that country, is still in receipt of legal aid here, with which she has attempted in recent months to seek the striking out of the court orders requiring the boy's return to the United Kingdom.
  It is not my constituent who abducted his son. The Minister will understand why Mr. Horne feels, to put it mildly, that he has been penalised for sticking to the law while his wife has been rewarded for acting in defiance of the convention. I have to ask, "Would my constituent have been better off had he tried to snatch Robert back from Portugal illegally and return him to his home jurisdiction?" On the basis of his experience, it appears to my constituent that those who seek to evade the duties imposed by the convention are able to get away with it.
  That leads me to questions of the effectiveness of the convention as a whole. Is the Minister satisfied that Portugal is carrying out its obligations under the Hague convention or is this case an example of the state of affairs in which the British courts enforce international treaties to the letter, while other countries, which are happy to put their names to a piece of paper, in practice do precious little to carry out their obligations?
  Behind the case lies a personal tragedy—a father denied access to a much-loved son, and a sister who cannot understand why her adored little brother has gone away from home and has not told her the reason. My constituent has not had the justice to which I believe he is entitled under the treaty to which this country and Portugal are signatories. I hope that the Minister will be able to give him some comfort.
  6.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for raising
  1136
  the subject of international parental child abduction. He and I have corresponded on the case of his constituent, Mr. Lawrence Horne. I hear of similar cases from other hon. Members. I can well understand the anxiety and distress experienced by the left-behind parent, as well as the trauma suffered by the children who become the unwilling victims of their parents' mutual hostility.
  Hon. Members who write to me about such cases ask me, as a Minister with responsibility for the judicial system in England and Wales, to intervene directly on behalf of their constituents. That I simply cannot do. I have to remind hon. Members of the fundamental principle that the judiciary must be, and must be seen to be, fully independent of Government. That principle applies just as much when a case is proceeding before a court abroad as it does to proceedings before our own domestic courts.
  The hon. Gentleman has already told the House the facts of Mr. Horne's case, which is currently the subject of an appeal in the Portuguese courts. I must tell him that it would be inappropriate, and quite possibly counter-productive, for the Government at this stage to seek in any way to influence or constrain the judicial process in another jurisdiction.
  That said, I should explain to the House how the Government tackle the problem of international child abduction, through international co-operation. The principal vehicle for that is the 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. The main provisions of the 1980 convention were brought into force in the United Kingdom in 1986, under the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985. That domestic legislation allows cases in England and Wales to be heard only in the High Court, which means that the senior judiciary has developed a high level of experience and expertise in such work. It also enables cases to be heard with the minimum of delay.
  The convention establishes a legal framework for the speedy return of children who have been abducted from one member state to another. Its history is one of the major success stories of international judicial co-operation. There are more than 44 member states, and others are continuously applying to the Hague conference to accede to the convention.
  The convention is brought into force bilaterally between member states. For example, it has recently come into force between the United Kingdom and South Africa, between the UK and Turkmenistan and between the UK and Venezuela.
  There are a number of ways in which cases brought under the convention can be resolved. Judicial decisions in a court case are only one means. A proportion of Hague convention applications that are made are subsequently withdrawn. In some, when we know the reason for the withdrawal of the application, the case has been resolved by agreement between the parents. In some cases, we know that the abducting parent has agreed to return the child voluntarily. In fact, some countries prefer to encourage voluntary returns rather than formal applications to the court. All that makes it impossible to produce complete and accurate statistics on the total number of cases dealt with under the convention, but what is beyond question is that the convention has had a very significant effect on the ease and speed with which abducted children are returned.

  1137
  The convention requires member states to set up an effective mechanism for the handling of cases. In particular, each country must designate a central authority to deal with both incoming and outgoing applications for the return of children. In the United Kingdom, there is a separate central authority for each of the three legal jurisdictions: Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor is the central authority for England and Wales. His functions under the convention are carried out by the child abduction unit, which is a specialist unit within the Official Solicitor's office. Staff in the unit, which includes an in-house lawyer, send and receive applications for the return of children, communicate with parents, lawyers and other central authorities and instruct solicitors to act on behalf of applicants in other countries wanting to take proceedings in England and Wales. Their expertise is highly valued by all their contacts, both in this country and in other contracting states.
  A parent whose child has been abducted to a convention country may, with the help of the relevant central authorities, make an application to the court in the distant country for the return of the child to his or her country of habitual residence. Convention cases are heard under a summary court procedure. The court must decide, under the terms of the convention, whether a child has been wrongfully removed from, or retained away from, the country of habitual residence, in breach of a right of custody. If so, the court must decide whether the child should be returned to the country of habitual residence.
  The convention does not, and cannot, guarantee the return of the child in every case. The courts of each contracting state operate under their own internal procedures. It is for them to decide, applying the principles of the convention, whether or not a child should be returned in a particular case. When a return is ordered, it will be for the courts in the country of habitual residence to decide issues about the child's longer-term future. If a return is not ordered, it is open to the left-behind parent to apply under the convention for assistance in obtaining access to the child by means of domestic proceedings. In relevant countries, the Council of Europe custody and access convention can also be used.
  I pay tribute to the work of the voluntary sector, which plays a significant role. We are fortunate in this country to have the Reunite National Council for Abducted Children, which offers impartial help and support to parents of abducted children, and makes an especially significant contribution to the prevention of abduction. It provides assistance by way of an advice line to parents whose children have been abducted, or who are in fear of abduction. For those parents and for other people with an interest, it provides advice by way of a child abduction prevention pack. It does extensive work with parents whose cases involve non-convention countries. By means of its contacts with lawyers in both convention and non-convention countries, it can help parents who need to take proceedings abroad to find a lawyer. It is frequently involved in international conferences on child abduction, which have recently included conferences organised by the South African Government as they proceed with the implementation of the convention. The Government
  1138
  recognise Reunite's work by making a contribution to its funding. The Reunite advice line is also helped by the BBC's "Children in Need" programme.
  Despite that, however, Reunite is heavily dependent on the good will and commitment of its staff, volunteers and friends. It provides an excellent example of how a small voluntary agency can work effectively, not only in individual cases but by fostering understanding and co-operation throughout the national and international community.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about steps that the UK Government can take to secure the better operation of the convention between contracting states. The Government are generally satisfied with the legal principles underlying the convention. However, I recognise that the operation of international conventions involves the difficult alignment of different jurisdictions and different traditions of law and society. That inevitably involves problems. There is always scope for operational improvement through better co-ordination and co-operation among contracting states.
  In addition to the action taken in individual cases by the central authority, the Government participate fully in mechanisms for reviewing the operation of the convention internationally. Discussions on specific problems take place regularly with other contracting states through judicial and administrative channels.
  The hon. Gentleman has suggested in the past that the UK Government should disapply the 1980 Hague convention in relation to other contracting states that do not comply with its requirements. The Government do not consider that there would be any advantage to this country or to its citizens in disapplying the operation of the convention. Our experience has shown that, when problems arise, because of the mechanisms between contracting states under the Hague convention, there is a much higher success rate in securing returns from those countries than in cases in which a child has been abducted to a non-convention country.
  The hon. Gentleman also raised with me two specific points: parental access under the Hague convention and legal aid. Parental access is dealt with under article 21 of the convention. As the hon. Gentleman set out clearly the way in which that article operates, I shall not repeat his efforts. Parental access is an issue in domestic proceedings within the competent jurisdiction. The application of the convention is governed by those internal domestic proceedings.
  The availability of legal aid to applicants under the convention in other jurisdictions is a matter for those jurisdictions. There is no uniform application, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern and interest. The Government will continue to seek practical improvements in the way in which the law in this area operates. I am particularly grateful that the hon. Gentleman has not only raised the important individual case of his constituent, but has taken a clear interest in the general question of how this mechanism can be improved for the benefit of everyone.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Seven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bank Charges
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to meet representatives of the banking community to discuss their charging practices. [81646]

  Dr. Howells
  This policy area is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Treasury. I have no plans to meet representatives at this time.

  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the availability of Shipbuilding Intervention Fund grants for 1999. [82166]

  Mr. Battle
  I have decided to extend the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund for currently eligible yards until 31 December 1999. The rates of support will be unchanged from those in 1998, namely 9 per cent. for large ships and 4½ per cent. for small ships, both rates inclusive of Shipbuilders' Relief of 2 per cent. These are the maximum rates permitted within the EU' s Shipbuilding Regulation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lough Foyle
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is on the pay of the crew of the research vessel Lough Foyle. [81213]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland contracts out the management and crewing of the research vessel "Lough Foyle" via periodic competitive tender.

  The tenderers, not the Department, determine the pay of the crew, within an overall tender package.

  Firearm Clubs

  Name of club

  Estimated number of members

  Parliamentary constituency

  RUC Rifle and Pistol Club

  159

  Belfast, East

  Gallaher Small Bore Rifle Club

  11

  Belfast, East

  CIYMS Rifle Club

  20

  Belfast, East

  Campbell College CCF Rifle Club

  10

  Belfast, East

  Belfast Harbour Police Rifle Club

  10

  Belfast, North

  606

  Firearms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many legally registered firearms have been(a) reported stolen, (b) found to be missing and (c) otherwise separated from (i) private and (ii) public owners in each of the last 10 years; and what percentage that represents of the total number of legally held weapons. [81131]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]Records are not maintained by the RUC in a manner that would provide a breakdown of firearms stolen or found to be missing into the categories requested. However I am advised by the Chief Constable that the total numbers of legally registered firearms reported stolen or found to be missing from private and public owners in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years are follows:

  Period

  Private

  Public

  Total

  16 April 1989-15 April 1990

  78

  5

  83

  16 April 1990–15 April 1991

  79

  10

  89

  16 April 1991–15 April 1992

  76

  1

  77

  16 April 1992–15 April 1993

  87

  4

  91

  16 April 1993–15 April 1994

  84

  1

  85

  16 April 1994–15 April 1995

  84

  2

  86

  16 April 1995–15 April 1996

  80

  2

  82

  16 April 1996–15 April 1997

  97

  3

  100

  16 April 1997–15 April 1998

  143

  2

  145

  16 April 1998–15 April 1999

  125

  4

  129

  Total

  933

  34

  967

  In the present context "public owners" is taken to mean those public sector employees who require a firearm for their official duties and hold same on foot of a firearms certificate issued to them by the Chief Constable.The methods used by the RUC to keep firearms statistics in general, or those reported stolen or found to be missing do not permit a percentage calculation for the years requested.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the names of approved firearms clubs giving(a) the estimated membership of each, (b) the parliamentary constituency in which its premises are located and (c) the (i) number and (ii) types of weapons reported (1) stolen and (2) lost from each club in the last five years.[81132]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]The following is a list of firearms clubs authorised by the Secretary of State under Article 54 of the Firearms (NI) Order 1981 together with the estimated membership of each and the Parliamentary Constituencies in which the clubs' authorised premises are located. I am advised by the Chief Constable that information regarding the number and types of firearms reported stolen or lost from each club in the last five years is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  607

  Firearm Clubs

  Name of club

  Estimated number of members

  Parliamentary constituency

  2390 Squadron Air Training Corps-Belfast Royal Academy Rifle Club

  10

  Belfast, North

  Ulster Rifle Association

  394

  Belfast, South

  Ardnavalley Scout Activity Centre

  10

  Belfast, South

  Roe Valley Rifle Club

  19

  East Londonderry

  Laghey Small Bore Pistol and Rifle Club

  53

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Dungannon Rifle and Pistol Club

  134

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Dungannon Royal School Rifle Club

  17

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Sherrygroom Rifle and Pistol Club

  35

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Omagh District USCA Rifle Club

  141

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  Tully Sports Club

  16

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  City of Derry Rifle and Pistol Club

  16

  Foyle

  Creevedonnell Air Rifle Club

  34

  Foyle

  Coolkeeragh Air Rifle Club

  10

  Foyle

  Co Londonderry XB Rifle and Pistol Club

  73

  Foyle

  BT (NI) Small Bore Pistol and Rifle Club

  101

  Lagan Valley

  Downshire Rifle Club

  55

  Lagan Valley

  Marlin Rifle Club

  17

  Lagan Valley

  Downpatrick USCA Rifle Club

  41

  Lagan Valley

  Orritor Rifle Club

  19

  Mid-Ulster

  Desertmartin Air Rifle Club

  47

  Mid-Ulster

  Mowillian Air Rifle Club

  19

  Mid-Ulster

  Castledawson Rifle and Pistol Club

  24

  Mid-Ulster

  Culnady Air Rifle Club

  17

  Mid-Ulster

  Armagh Royal School Rifle Club

  64

  Newry and Armagh

  Leopold Street Rifle Club

  17

  North Antrim

  Ballymena Rifle and Pistol Club

  65

  North Antrim

  Michelin Athletic Small Bore Section RC

  24

  North Antrim

  North Antrim Small Bore Rifle Club

  20

  North Antrim

  Tully Shooting Club

  72

  North Antrim

  Clandeboye, Bangor and District Rifle and Pistol Club

  248

  North Down

  Bangor and District Small Bore Rifle Club

  24

  North Down

  Carrowdore and District Shooting and Recreational Club

  29

  North Down

  Rockport School Shooting Club

  30

  North Down

  Bangor Grammar School Combined Cadet Force Air Rifle Club

  10

  North Down

  East Antrim Rifle Club

  177

  South Antrim

  Fortwilliam Rifle Club

  14

  South Antrim

  Jordanstown Scout Group Air Rifle Club

  19

  South Antrim

  RAF Aldergrove Full Bore Shooting Club

  30

  South Antrim

  Belfast Home Guard

  15

  Strangford

  Shorts RC

  17

  Strangford

  IEL Rifle Club

  13

  Strangford

  Comber Rifle Club

  128

  Strangford

  Loughbrickland Small Bore Rifle Club

  124

  Upper Bann

  Portadown Ulster Home Guard

  10

  Upper Bann

  Mill Valley Shooting Club

  34

  Upper Bann

  Omagh Scout Group Rifle Club

  18

  West Tyrone

  Bready Air Rifle Club

  38

  West Tyrone

  Donemanagh Air Rifle Club

  12

  West Tyrone

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many legally held firearms there are in Northern Ireland(a) in total and (b) of each type. [81133]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]The Chief Constable has advised me that at 31 December 1998 there were 139,588 legally held firearms in Northern Ireland. The breakdown of these is as follows:

  Type of firearm

  Number

  Shotguns

  90,548

  Airguns

  22,109

  Rifles

  14,254

  Handguns

  12,090

  Miscellaneous

  1587

  1Mainly firearms used for the humane killing of animals

  608
  In relation to the reply give to my hon. Friend on 16 April 1999, Official Report, columns 359–60, I would advise that the figure quoted for miscellaneous firearms was incorrect. The correct figure is quoted on this occasion.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Discontinued Prosecutions
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions the Crown Prosecution Service has discontinued criminal prosecutions since May 1997 on the grounds of disproportionate cost. [80380]

  The Solicitor-General
  Each case which the police send to the Crown Prosecution Service is reviewed by a
  609
  Crown Prosecutor. The case will be carefully considered to make sure that it meets the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The Code states that where there is enough evidence to offer a realistic prospect of conviction, in cases of seriousness, a prosecution will be the usual course of action unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweight those tending in favour.

  Cost, on its own, is not a factor that determines whether or not a prosecution should be discontinued. However, if during the course of a prosecution it becomes clear that a court is likely to impose only a very small or nominal penalty, a prosecution may no longer be in the public interest and the proceedings may be discontinued.

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not maintain any central record of discontinued cases. The information is recorded on individual case files, the recovery of which would involve disproportionate cost.

  Case Presentation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he plans to take to improve the way in which cases are presented to the CPS and Serious Fraud Office for prosecution. [80381]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Serious Fraud Office is responsible both for the investigation and prosecution of cases involving serious or complex fraud. In almost every case it investigates in conjunction with a police force and there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Director of the Serious Fraud Office and ACPO on how investigations are to be conducted. The Memorandum places an emphasis on planning and accountability and in every case SFO documentary control systems are used to ensure the efficient use of investigator and police time. The Crown Prosecution Service is working with the police on a number of initiatives to improve the way that cases are presented to the Crown Prosecution Service including collaboration on ways of implementing the Glidewell recommendations to introduce joint police/CPS Criminal Justice Units to facilitate the progress of cases through the magistrates' courts and the establishment of Trial Units to handle Crown Court casework.

  Year offence recorded

  Number of offences

  (a) Not commenced per cent.

  (b) Commenced but discontinued per cent.

  (c) Completed but no conviction for homicide per cent.

  (d) Conviction per cent.

  1986

  210

  13

  1

  24

  61

  1987

  193

  14

  1

  21

  64

  1988

  148

  17

  1

  20

  63

  1989

  177

  16

  —

  23

  61

  1990

  184

  19

  —

  25

  55

  1991

  184

  16

  1

  27

  56

  1992

  175

  12

  1

  29

  59

  1993

  160

  16

  —

  23

  62

  1994

  167

  20

  1

  21

  58

  1995

  167

  24

  2

  19

  54

  1996

  144

  19

  1

  19

  56

  1997

  180

  29

  1

  12

  42

  610

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received on his proposals to reform the Crown Prosecution Service. [80375]

  The Solicitor-General
  There is continuing interest in the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Attorney-General and I regularly receive inquiries and representations from hon. Members about the Service.

  Sir lain Glidewell's Report on the Crown Prosecution Service made a number of recommendations aimed at reform of the Crown Prosecution Service. Additionally, the Government decided to re-structure the CPS into 42 geographical Areas to improve efficiency and accountability.

  The Crown Prosecution Service is making good progress in considering and implementing the recommendations in Sir lain Glidewell's Report. Additionally, the new 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors are now in post to take forward the reforms that will improve efficiency.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he takes to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service gives due weight to environmental considerations in deciding whether to pursue a prosecution. [80379]

  The Solicitor-General
  A number of prosecuting authorities are responsible for the enforcement of cases involving environmental considerations. Agencies such as the Environment Agency prosecute a high proportion of such cases; the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes offences investigated by the police. All prosecuting authorities must apply the Code for Crown Prosecutors when making the decision to prosecute. If there is sufficient evidence, environmental considerations will be a factor taken into account when deciding whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.

  Homicides (London)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases of homicide in London(a) have not been the subject of commencement of legal proceedings, (b) have been the subject of commenced but discontinued legal proceedings, (c) have been the subject of completed legal proceedings, but without conviction and (d) have led to conviction, for each year since the CPS was established. [80372]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS do not keep central records. Figures compiled by the Home Office from police notifications show that:
  611
  In addition, there were proceedings pending as follows: 1 in 1986, 1 in 1994, 1 in 1995, 7 in 1996 and 29 in 1997.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Commission Funding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 18 March 1999,Official Report, columns 759–60, concerning EU budget line B3–306, for what reason the Commission removed the prohibition in the amended Budget Line notes; and what is the basis for the statement that the Commission shares his Department's view of how such expenditure should be used. [80177]

  Ms Quin
  The drafting of language used in this Budget Line is a matter for the European Commission.

  I refer the hon. Member to the Budget Line notes for 1999. They state:
  "These measures are designed to be an effective channel of communication and dialogue between the people of the European Union and the Community institutions. They take account of specific national and regional characteristics, in close co-operation with the Member State authorities."

  Le Monde Article
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department was informed in advance of the intended placement of the article by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) in Le Monde on 3 March. [80156]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to deposit the agendas for the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Groups in the Library. [80149]

  Ms Quin
  The Government do not have discretion unilaterally to disclose documents which may jeopardise the confidentiality of internal European Union discussion, such as the agendas of CFSP working groups, which, on occasions, can be sensitive. However, the Government are committed to ensuring more effective parliamentary scrutiny of, and greater openness in EU business, including the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and have introduced procedures for the parliamentary scrutiny of all CFSP Common Positions, Joint Actions, and other politically important documents.

  The UK participates in a very large number of working-level meetings in the international organisations of which it is a member: not only in the EU but also, for example, in the UN, NATO and the OSCE.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held between(a) United Kingdom Ministers, (b) British diplomats and (c) other parties acting on behalf
  612
  of the United Kingdom with President Slobodan Milosevic since he assumed the presidency of Yugoslavia; on which date the meetings were held; and what matters were discussed in each case. [81578]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I met President Milosevic on 31 October 1997 when I informed him that we wanted the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to rejoin the European family of nations but that this would require progress on democratisation, indicted war criminals and Kosovo. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary travelled to Belgrade to discuss Kosovo with President Milosevic on 5 March 1998.

  Our Ambassador in Belgrade, Ivor Roberts, was present during the first of the above calls and met Milosevic separately on 10 June 1997 when the conversation was dominated by war criminals and Kosovo. Brian Donnelly, our subsequent Ambassador, presented his credentials to Milosevic on 19 December 1997: the call focused on Bosnia, war criminals and Kosovo.

  Ivor Roberts travelled to Belgrade on 2 July 1998 as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's Special Representative to discuss Kosovo. The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party met Milosevic on 29 September and handed over a letter from the Prime Minister.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the dates when the Government of the United Kingdom recognised the independence of new states which were parts of the former state of Yugoslavia, (b) what conditions were imposed on their recognition, (c) whether the conditions were imposed in concert with the then other members of the European Community and (d) the dates of such decisions taken by the Council of Ministers. [81434]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Republics of Croatia and Slovenia were both recognised by the UK, as part of a concerted European Community move, on 15 January 1992.

  The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised by all European Community states on 7 April 1992.

  The Republic of Macedonia was recognised by the United Kingdom on 8 April 1993 when it was admitted to the United Nations.

  The UK recognised the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in line with EU partners on 9 April 1996 following the change in regional circumstances post-Dayton.

  Recognition followed advice given by the Badinter Arbitration Commission to the European Community Peace Conference on whether the Republics applying for recognition as independent states met all the conditions set in the European Community Declaration of 16 December 1991.

  Defence Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that annual reports on defence exports contain a breakdown of licences refused. [81170]
  613
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The first Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls gives a breakdown of licences refused by country and by the Military List rating of the goods. The Government will review the level of information to be disclosed in future reports in the light of reactions to the first report.

  International War Crimes Tribunal (Kosovo)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that(a) relevant intelligence information gathered by NATO in recent weeks is made available to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and (b) the tribunal receives adequate resources to enable it to carry out its work in respect of events in Kosovo. [81649]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A senior FCO official, David Gowan, has been appointed to be Kosovo War Crimes Coordinator. He will be responsible for ensuring that the Government pass as much information as possible, including intelligence, to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia that might be relevant to the Tribunal's investigations. The Tribunal's budget, set by the UN, is 51 per cent. larger this year than last. The Tribunal is devoting substantial effort to investigating events in Kosovo, but we are not aware that it needs additional funds at present.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional supplementary contributions the Government are giving to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to enable it to carry out its work in relation to the events in Kosovo. [81730]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  . The Government have already contributed £290,000 this year to support various aspects of the work of the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in addition to the UK's assessed contribution for 1999 of US$5.08m. The Tribunal has not so far sought further financial contributions for its work on Kosovo. We will give careful consideration to any such requests should they be made. We are also considering certain requests for assistance in kind, in addition to the assistance with information on atrocities that we are already providing to the Tribunal.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the UN General Assembly to make a special allocation to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to meet the needs of the Tribunal arising from the events in Kosovo. [81729]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Nations General Assembly allocated the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia a budget for 1999 which was 51 per cent. greater than that allocated for 1998. The Tribunal has not so far sought a further budget provision to cover its work relating to Kosovo. We would give sympathetic consideration to any such request to the General Assembly.

  Single Market
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement 614
  on the progress made under the United Kingdom presidency of the EU of the Single Market Action Plan by number of targets achieved; and how many targets were met during each other presidency. [81226]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Single Market Action Plan, which was endorsed by the European Council in Amsterdam in June 1997, set an ambitious 18-month programme in the run-up to the introduction of the euro. Regular reports on the implementation of the Action Plan have been provided at six-monthly intervals by the Single Market Scoreboard. Three such Scoreboards were published during the lifetime of the Action Plan, during the Luxembourg, UK and Austrian Presidencies. It is clear that good progress has been made in implementing the measures contained in the Action Plan, as the Commission reports in its Communication assessing the Action Plan (COM(1999)74 Final of 18 February), and the UK Presidency played no small part in contributing to that success.

SCOTLAND

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999,Official Report, columns 57–58, on CS sprays, if he will place in the Library a copy of the report arising out of the evaluation of the trial with CS sprays. [80816]

  Mr. Henry McLeish
  I am arranging for a copy of the police report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tree Planting
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to increase the level of tree planting. [80371]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We are fully committed to increasing the area of woodland in Britain. The Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme and the Agriculture Department's Farm Woodland Premium Scheme both offer grants to landowners to establish new woodlands. The Woodland Grant Scheme also offers Challenge Funds and Locational Supplements to target new planting in certain areas and the Commission has a Land Regeneration Unit to encourage the conversion of derelict land to woodland. We launched a Forestry Strategy for England recently which will help focus our efforts to promote new planting; the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly in Wales will, of course, develop their own policies on forestry in Scotland and Wales.

TREASURY

  Self-Assessment Tax Returns
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the Inland Revenue Faster Working procedure used in the Wye Valley region of the Inland Revenue; [80253]
  615
  (2) which Inland Revenue regional offices offer the Faster Working procedure; [80254]

  (3) what proportion and how many Inland Revenue inquiries have been conducted under the Faster Working procedure. [80255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under the Faster Working procedures, Inland Revenue inquiries into self-assessment tax returns may proceed according to a flexible timetable agreed between the inspector and the taxpayer or the taxpayer's agent. No statistics are maintained on the number of inquiries conducted under Faster Working. All Inland Revenue Regions offer Faster Working. There

  Table 1: Revenue evaded through cross-Channel smuggling of alcohol

  £ million

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Product type

  Duty

  VAT

  Total

  Duty

  VAT

  Total

  Duty

  VAT

  Total

  Beer

  95

  45

  135

  95

  50

  150

  120

  65

  185

  Wine

  45

  20

  60

  40

  20

  60

  45

  20

  65

  Spirits

  50

  15

  65

  25

  10

  35

  30

  10

  40

  Total

  185

  80

  265

  165

  80

  240

  915

  95

  290

  Note:

  Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals shown.

  The above estimates exclude any amounts for revenue evaded through smuggling in freight consignments or diversion type fraud of alcoholic drinks.

  Further details of the cross-border shopping and cross-Channel smuggling estimates are given in a technical report placed in the House of Commons Library on 19 November 1998.

  Smuggled Alcohol
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of seizures of alcohol smuggled into the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [81056]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since 1995 Customs have made the following seizures of alcohol smuggled into the United Kingdom.

  Financial Year

  £million

  1995–96

  8.0

  1996–97

  11.7

  1997–98

  28.7

  Figures for the 1998–99 Financial Year are currently being collated and assured.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library calculations on a regular basis of the savings ratio disaggregated by income group. [81458]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply. The article referred to in his reply has been placed in the Library.
  616
  are agreed national guidelines for Faster Working, an outline of which has been published in Inland Revenue leaflet IR162.

  Alcohol Duty Evasion
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of alcohol duty evasion in each of the last three years. [81055]

  Mrs. Roche
  HM Customs and Excise estimates for revenue evaded (excise duty and VAT) through cross-Channel smuggling of alcohol for the last three years are given in the table.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, dated 22 April 1999:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the UK saving ratio.
  The ONS calculates the UK saving ratio, and it is published in the Quarterly National Accounts First Release and Economic Trends. Both publications are available in the House of Commons Library. The ONS does not produce estimates of the saving ratio disaggregated by income group.
  The ONS is developing a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM), which will produce estimates of income and expenditure disaggregated by industry and household type. This work could be extended to include a breakdown by income group, but we have no plans to do so at present. A SAM depends on the reconciliation of data from a number of sources, including household surveys, where sample sizes may not be sufficiently large to give robust estimates at the detailed level. Progress on the SAM project will be reported in Economic Trends in due course. A copy of an article by David Hughes, which appeared in Economic Trends in September 1996, giving the framework for the SAM, is attached for your information.

  Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people will cease to receive tax relief on maintenance payments at(a) 10 per cent. and (b) 40 per cent. as a result of the change contained in the Finance Bill; [81586]

  (2) how much revenue will be raised in 2000–01 as a result of the removal of tax relief for maintenance payments. [81588]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]: There will be around 350,000 people who will cease to receive relief on maintenance payments in 2000–01 as a result of the 1999 Budget proposals, of which some 310,000 will cease to receive relief at 10 per cent., 20,000 will lose relief at basic rate and 20,000 at higher rate.
  617
  There will be around £65 million raised for 2000–01 as a result of the removal of tax relief for maintenance payments. However, a new children's tax credit for families with children is being introduced in 2001–02. These reforms will modernise the personal tax system by getting rid of outdated allowances and bringing in a new relief which will concentrate resources where they are most needed—on families bringing up children.

  Small Businesses
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Bath report into the compliance costs to employers of operating PAYE and NICs. [82135]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to helping business in general, and small business in particular, meet their obligations by providing a range of help, guidance and assistance to them. The Budget contained a number of measures designed to increase support for small business including the creation of the Small Business Service and the new and improved services from the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

  The Report by Bath University contained 31 recommendations for Government. Around two-thirds of the recommendations have been accepted. A note providing a more detailed response has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the revenue generation from the proposed increase in the stamp duty charge on all off-market transfers of tradeable securities; and what assessment he has made of the impact on the savings industry and smaller investors of the increase; [R] [79937]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the proposed increase in the stamp duty charge on all off-market transfers of tradeable securities; if this includes transfers into nominee registration, from 50p to £5; on what date the increase is planned to take effect; and what estimate his Department has made of the likely number of annual transfers to which this charge (i) would have applied in 1998–99 and (ii) will apply in 1999–2000. [R] [79936]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]In order to streamline the administration of Stamp Duty, the Budget proposed that current charging provisions be standardised to provide for rounding up to a multiple of £5 in all cases, and that fixed stamp duties be set at £5. These changes will take effect from 1 October 1999. The proposals do not affect the stamp duty reserve tax charges on the bulk of share transactions, which are settled in dematerialised form within CREST.

  About 1 million transfers of securities in a full year are expected to be subject to these reforms, yielding about £5 million. Most of these are fixed duty transfers involving nominees.

  The impact of the new provision on the savings industry and on small investors is expected to be very small.
  618

  Speed Enforcement Cameras
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the local authority schemes that are being permitted to meet the funding costs of speed enforcement cameras from the money raised from fines and penalties; [80139]

  (2) what criteria must be met for a local authority to be permitted to meet the funding costs of speed enforcement cameras from the money raised from fines and penalties. [80140]

  Mr. Milburn
  At present no local authorities, or other organisations, are permitted to retain the receipts from fines relating to speed enforcement camera convictions.

  In December 1998 the Treasury issued a press notice setting out criteria against which requests to offset receipts from fines/penalties against Departmental Expenditure Limits can be assessed. The criteria aim to increase the effectiveness of enforcement while ensuring that such fines continue to be set on justice and deterrence principles and are not used as a means of raising revenue.

  The costs associated with speed enforcement cameras are borne by a range of different organisations, including the police, courts and local authorities. DETR, Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Department are currently considering whether receipts from speed enforcement camera related fines would meet the criteria. We would need to be clear that the receipts could be properly apportioned between the authorities involved.

  The criteria relate specifically to netting off receipts from expenditure in Departmental Expenditure Limits. They do not directly apply to any local authority self financed expenditure, which is not part of DEL. However, before allowing local authorities to retain a proportion of the receipts from speed camera related fines we would need to be satisfied that they would generally meet the same conditions.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 16 to 18 April; and if he will make a statement. [81687]

  Ms Hewitt
  There was an informal meeting of EU Finance and Economic Ministers and Central Bank Governors in Dresden on 16 to 18 April. In accordance with the usual procedures at these informal meetings, there were no decisions and no minutes were taken.

  EU Alcohol Duties
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in euros the value of the tax and duty imposed on a litre of(a) wine, (b) beer and (c) spirits at 40 degree strength in each EU member state. [81728]

  Mrs. Roche
  The table shows the excise duty in euros and the percentage rate of VAT.

  Because of the VAT component, the total tax will depend on retail selling prices in each member state. Comparable information on this is not available.
  619

  Excise

  Wine

  Beer

  Spirits at 40°

  VAT

  (euro per litre)

  percentage

  Austria

  0.0

  0.2

  2.9

  20.0

  Belgium

  0.5

  0.2

  6.6

  21.0

  Denmark

  0.9

  0.5

  14.7

  25.0

  Finland

  2.4

  1.4

  20.4

  22.0

  France

  0.0

  0.1

  5.8

  20.6

  Germany

  0.0

  0.1

  5.2

  16.0

  Greece

  0.0

  0.2

  3.8

  18.0

  Ireland

  2.8

  1.0

  11.4

  21.0

  Italy

  0.0

  0.2

  2.6

  20.0

  Luxembourg

  0.0

  0.1

  4.1

  15.0

  Netherlands

  0.5

  0.2

  6.0

  17.5

  Portugal

  0.0

  0.1

  3.3

  17.0

  Spain

  0.0

  0.1

  2.7

  16.0

  Sweden

  3.2

  0.9

  23.8

  25.0

  UK

  2.2

  0.8

  11.4

  17.5

  Note:

  The figures shown for wine are for still table wine. For beer a strength of 5% alcohol by volume or 12.5 degrees Plato is assumed.

  Source:

  European Commission Excise Duty Tables. (Directorate General XXI) Excise Duty Tables (December 1998).

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on friendly societies of the introduction of(a) individual savings accounts, (b) individual learning accounts and (c) stakeholder pensions. [81693]

  Ms Hewitt
  Given their traditional roots and financial expertise, friendly societies are well placed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by individual savings accounts, individual learning accounts and stakeholder pensions.

  Self-employed (National Insurance)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral answer to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), 15 April 1999,Official Report, column 358, on national insurance and the self-employed, what factors underlie the difference between that answer and the figures in Table 1–11 of the Red Book. [81718]

  Mrs. Roche
  As explained in the Red Book (page 115, final paragraph) the figures in Table 1.11 are on a National Accounts Basis. For National Insurance Contributions this means that the figures depend on when the liability arises, not when the cash is expected to be received.

  The question from the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) asked for the change in the amount to be paid by the self-employed in 2000–01, so the answer gave an estimate of the effect on actual National Insurance Contributions receipts in 2000–01.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if mutual shares held by a credit union member held in a common bond can be one of his special savings schemes covered by ISAs. [81606]
  620
  Ms Hewitt
  No. Shares in credit unions are not a qualifying investment for individual savings accounts.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Inspection Charges
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the flat rate charges envisaged under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations will apply regardless of the seniority and experience of the inspector undertaking the inspections on site. [80279]

  Mr. Meacher
  Yes. All inspectors who carry out assessment or inspection under the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1999 (COMAH) will be competent by virtue of their qualifications, training and experience to undertake the full range of work. The charge to industry will be at a single rate and is intended to recover the Competent Authority's full cost in line with HM Treasury's Fees and Charges Guide.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) train, (b) signal and (c) track failures in each year since 1994–95 for each line of the London Underground. [81054]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Figures for train, signal and track failures on London Underground since 1994–95 are as follows:

  Delays in

  Signal/points

  Other track

  Rolling stock

  1994–95

  2,349

  659

  16,123

  1995–96

  2,494

  959

  15,102

  1996–97

  2,323

  1,007

  14,873

  1997–98

  2,725

  881

  17,801

  1998–99

  2,756

  869

  20,159

  Figures for 1998–99 are provisional.

  Figures on a line-by-line basis are not yet available and I will write to the honourable Member.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the maintenance and investment budget for rolling stock, signalling and track in each year since 1994–95, for each line of the London Underground. [81053]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Figures for the maintenance and investment spend for rolling stock, signalling and track on London Underground for the financial years 1994–95 to 1998–99 are set out in the following table.
  621

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Investment

  Maintenance

  Investment

  Maintenance

  Investment

  Maintenance

  Investment

  Maintenance

  Investment

  Maintenance

  Bakerloo

  Rolling Stock

  8.9

  4.2

  1.6

  4.0

  1.8

  4.0

  3.3

  4.6

  6.2

  4.6

  Track

  0.1

  3.2

  2.5

  3.1

  2.9

  2.8

  4.4

  1.8

  5.4

  1.8

  Signals

  0.4

  0.6

  0.8

  0.8

  0.1

  0.8

  0.0

  0.9

  0.3

  0.6

  Central

  Rolling Stock

  80.3

  7.9

  3.1

  9.3

  4.2

  10.1

  1.4

  10.3

  4.8

  12.4

  Track

  10.2

  7.8

  18.5

  6.7

  17.0

  6.9

  17.1

  7.5

  16.3

  8.2

  Signals

  21.0

  2.7

  7.3

  3.1

  5.1

  4.2

  10.3

  4.8

  15.4

  4.8

  District

  Rolling Stock

  3.1

  8.4

  7.5

  8.2

  3.9

  7.8

  1.8

  7.9

  4.3

  8.8

  Track

  1.6

  7.4

  10.4

  5.4

  5.2

  6.4

  6.9

  5.1

  4.2

  6.6

  Signals

  0.4

  2.1

  2.1

  2.3

  1.7

  2.5

  1.8

  2.6

  3.7

  3.1

  Jubilee/ELL

  Rolling Stock

  0.1

  3:4

  0.0

  3.5

  0.0

  3.4

  0.0

  3.7

  0.0

  7.0

  Track

  1.0

  2.6

  5.1

  2.7

  7.2

  3.2

  7.4

  3.2

  1.0

  3.4

  Signals

  2.7

  0.9

  2.8

  0.9

  1.0

  0.9

  0.2

  1.1

  0.0

  1.9

  Met/Circle

  Rolling Stock

  13.0

  13.8

  23.0

  12.4

  15.4

  12.3

  16.3

  12.3

  1.0

  14.6

  Track

  1.1

  8.8

  12.5

  7.5

  4.8

  6.1

  5.4

  6.8

  9.0

  8.2

  Signals

  1.1

  6.5

  2.7

  6.3

  5.5

  3.0

  4.9

  3.0

  3.6

  3.1

  Northern

  Rolling Stock

  10.6

  9.1

  4.7

  10.5

  0.5

  10.9

  5.0

  14.1

  5.5

  14.1

  Track

  1.9

  6.0

  17.7

  6.3

  16.2

  6.0

  11.8

  5.6

  17.8

  6.7

  Signals

  0.0

  2.4

  2.3

  2.6

  1.2

  2.7

  0.5

  3.0

  1.6

  3.4

  Piccadilly

  Rolling Stock

  6.9

  7.8

  13.4

  7.5

  21.4

  7.8

  21.8

  8.6

  22.9

  10.0

  Track

  2.0

  6.1

  9.0

  6.0

  2.6

  6.7

  3.7

  7.0

  9.4

  7.7

  Signals

  0.7

  2.1

  1.2

  2.2

  1.0

  2.1

  0.3

  2.4

  0.1

  2.4

  Victoria

  Rolling Stock

  10.0

  6.2

  0.4

  6.4

  0.4

  6.5

  1.1

  6.3

  0.7

  6.7

  Track

  0.7

  2.3

  6.1

  1.7

  2.4

  2.2

  5.4

  2.5

  9.9

  3.1

  Signals

  0.0

  1.1

  0.2

  1.2

  0.1

  1.3

  0.1

  1.3

  0.2

  1.3

  Network

  Rolling Stock

  3.6

  0.0

  5.4

  0.0

  3.5

  0.0

  0.5

  0.0

  5.8

  0.0

  Track

  33.8

  0.0

  15.1

  0.0

  5.6

  0.0

  1.1

  0.0

  14.5

  0.0

  Signals

  1.7

  0.0

  1.0

  0.0

  0.9

  3.8

  0.5

  3.5

  2.8

  3.5

  Total

  216.9

  123.4

  176.4

  120.6

  131.6

  124.4

  133.0

  129.9

  166.4

  148.2

  Notes:

  Bakerloo

  Rolling stock refurbishment was completed in 1994–95

  Central

  Entry into service of new rolling stock was completed in 1994–95

  The line has been the major recipient of investment in track and signals over this period

  Jubilee

  Rolling stock maintenance costs in 1998–99 reflect the new, enlarged fleet

  Figures exclude investment undertaken under the JLE project

  Metropolitan/Circle

  Refurbishment of the Metropolitan line fleet took place between 1994–95 and 1997–98

  Northern

  The line has seen major investment in track in readiness for the introduction of new rolling stock being provided under the PFI deal.

  Rolling stock maintenance cost has increased during the new train delivery period.

  Piccadilly

  Rolling stock refurbishment commenced in 1994–95 and has been ongoing through the period

  Victoria

  Rolling stock refurbishment was completed in 1994–95

  Network

  Projects spanning more than one line are included here

  In the early years, major track replacement was managed as a single project. In 1998–99, a separate project was established for track programme management.

  From 1996–97 responsibility for routine signal equipment replacement, carried out according to a programme laid down by the Chief Engineer, was transferred to PSD Network Services. Previously the Metropolitan line managed this function on behalf of the network—and held the costs.
  622 623
  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the members of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, indicating their professional backgrounds in each case. [81346]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is published in the advisory committee's annual report. A copy is in the Library, the relevant information is reproduced as follows:

  Professor John Beringer

  Professor of Molecular Genetics and Dean of Science, School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol

  Member of ACGM

  Member of the Council of the Natural Environment Research Council

  Dr. Philip Dale

  Senior Research Scientist

  John Innes Centre

  Consultant to EC DGXI and UNIDO

  Dr. Ian Garner

  Assistant Director of Research, PPL Therapeutics, Roslin

  Member of BBSRC's Genes in Developmental Biology Network

  Professor Alan Gray

  Head of Furzebrook Research Station, NERC Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Honorary Professor, University of Southampton

  Ms Julie Hill

  Programme adviser to Green Alliance

  Member of the Advisory Committee for the Pesticides Trust, Environmental Law Foundation, and Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and environmental advisory bodies for Shanks and McEwan plc and Southern Electricity.

  Dr. Julian Kinderlerer

  Senior Lecturer—Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield

  Assistant Director—Institute of Biotechnology Law and Ethics, University of Sheffield

  Member of ACGM

  Consultant to UNIDO

  Mr. John MacLeod

  Director, National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  Member, UK Plant Varieties and Seeds Committee

  Member, Groupe Consultatif International de Recherche sur le Colza

  Professor Bev Moseley

  Retired, former Head of Institute Food Research, Reading Laboratory

  Professor David Onions

  Head of Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Glasgow

  Honorary Director of The Leukaemia Research Fund's Human Virus Centre

  Consultant to Q-One Biotec

  Adviser to Intervet International BV

  Professor Nigel Poole

  External and Regulatory Affairs Manager, Zeneca Plant Science, Bracknell

  Honorary Professor, University of Aberdeen

  Honorary Professor, John Moores University

  624
  Dr. David Robinson

  Principal Research Scientist, Scottish Crop Research Institute Honorary

  Lecturer, University of Dundee

  Member of Genetic Manipulation Safety Committee at Nickerson Seeds' Castleton of Eassie site

  Dr. Ingrid Williams

  Principal Scientist

  Leader of the Insect-Plant Interactions Group, Institute of Arable Crops Research Rothamsted

  Honorary Research Associate IGER

  Visiting Professor Estonian University of Agriculture

  Chairman of International Commission for Plant—Bee Relationships

  Council Member and Company director of International Bee Research Association

  Dr. Katherine Venables

  Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology at Imperial College School of Medicine at the National Heart and Lung Institute

  Honorary Consultant Physician at the Royal Brompton Hospital, and Honorary Consultant in Public Health to the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority.

  Mobile Crane Drivers
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many drivers of mobile cranes have not been granted a Group 2 (category C) licence under the second EC Driving Licence Directive (91/439/EEC) and the implementing legislation (SI 1996/2824). [81244]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of mobile crane drivers that have not been granted a Group 2 (category C) licence under the second EC Driving Licence Directive (91/439/EEC) and the implementation legislation (SI 1996/2824) is not available.

  Filling Stations (Alternative Fuels)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 18, what estimate he has made of the number of filling stations which offer re-fuelling for (a) LPG and (b) compressed natural gas. [81383]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are an estimated 174 LPG refuelling points in the UK. Although these are generally open to the public, only about a dozen are sited on retail forecourts. The number of LPG refuelling points is expected to increase to around 500 over the next three years with most of the new refuelling points sited on the forecourt.

  Refuelling points for compressed natural gas are predominantly depot based, though some permit third party access. There are around 30 fast-fill refuelling points in the UK suitable for fleet use and around 40 slow-fill refuelling points suitable for single vehicle refuelling. The number of fast-fill refuelling points is expected to double in the next year.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he
  625
  has to change the base of water rates calculated from the rateable values of its 1990 list to more recent valuations. [81486]

  Mr. Meale
  Rateable values ceased to be used for local government taxation purposes in 1990. Since then there has been no provision for amending or updating rateable values.

  We have made clear that we are willing to consider alternatives to the present system of unmeasured charging for water and sewerage services. We shall work with water companies and other groups with an interest to consider proposals for new charging arrangements. Any alternative system would need to provide for fair charges and any transition should be planned to avoid significant advert effects on particular groups of customers.

  KPMG
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) consultancy and (b) other contracts his Department has had with KPMG since 1 May 1997; and if KPMG is a prospective candidate for future contracts his Department is intending to let. [81420]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 19 April 1999]Since 1 May 1997 my Department has utilised six contracts with KPMG for the provision of management consultancy, research consultancy and other specific consultancy (e.g. privatisation) services.

  KPMG will continue to be considered for future contracts let by my Department where they are capable of meeting the requirement and are likely to offer best value for money, alongside any other organisations which meet the same criteria.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EU Environment Ministers meeting on 23 to 25 April; and if he will make a statement on his priorities for the meeting. [81489]

  Mr. Meacher
  This meeting of EU Environment Ministers planned for 23–25 April has been rescheduled for 7–9 May. It is an informal meeting. The following issues will be debated:Integrated product policy: to explore the scope for promoting more sustainable goods and services;
  Chemicals policy: to discuss progress on the review of EC policy on chemicals.

  It has not been the practice of successive Administrations to indicate the position Ministers propose to take in advance of Council.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made on the possible level of energy savings to be achieved by improving the energy efficiency of buildings; [81454]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of the country's energy used to heat and light buildings in the UK; [81455]
  626
  (3) what plans he has to increase the use of energy efficiency measures in (a) new and (b) existing buildings; [81456]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact of improving energy efficiency in buildings on helping the Government to achieve their target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. [81457]

  Mr. Meale
  Energy efficiency in buildings forms an essential part of the Government's strategy for meeting its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide. Under the Kyoto Protocol the UK agreed to reduce its emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels over the period 2008–12. In our manifesto we also set ourselves a domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010.

  Some initial assessments of the possible energy savings to be achieved by improving the energy efficiency of buildings were published in October 1998 in the Government's climate change consultation paper. The paper set out a number of options on how we might meet our climate change targets. For the domestic sector, we estimated that possible savings of up to 6.5 million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/Y) by 2010 could be achieved by improving building standards. We also estimated that improvements to public sector buildings could deliver 1.1 MtC/y. The potential contribution of commercial and industrial buildings was estimated as part of the "business" sector and not separately identified in the consultation document. However, we estimated that it could be of the order of 5 MtC/y.

  These carbon savings correspond to a reduction of 15 to 20 per cent. on the estimated carbon emissions for 2010 under "business as usual", that is, DTI's central estimate as published in Energy Paper 65.

  Space heating and lighting across all building sectors currently account for 32 per cent. of total UK delivered energy consumption.

  The DETR already funds a number of programmes and initiatives designed to improve energy efficiency, and increase the use of energy efficiency measures, in both new and existing buildings. These include the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme, the UK's primary knowledge-based energy efficiency information transfer programme, designed to assist energy users and professionals in industry, commerce, the public and housing sectors and in business transport to improve their energy efficiency. Best Practice also supports research and development to help bring forward tomorrow's energy efficiency measures. The programme includes site specific and project specific consultancy advice on improving the energy efficiency of buildings.

  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) provides energy efficiency improvement grants for householders receiving income-related benefit, disability allowance or over 60 years of age.

  The Energy Saving Trust continues to develop and implement a range of innovative projects aimed at promoting efficient use of energy in domestic and small business markets and supports Energy Efficiency Advice Centres and the "Energy Efficiency" campaign to promote energy efficiency in the domestic sector.
  627
  In addition, the Building Regulations are currently under review to see what maximum contribution they can make to achieving the Government's climate change targets whilst observing proportionality, maintaining acceptable design flexibility and avoiding unacceptable technical risks. The Government have announced their intention to consult on proposals for amendments later this year and the consultation documents will include assessments of the impact on greenhouse gas emissions if these proposals were to be adopted.

  The Government are currently considering how to develop the substantial potential of these programmes and what further approaches could be undertaken as part of the development of a new UK Climate Change programme.

  Genetically Modified Salmon
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental consequences of the farming of genetically modified salmon. [81451]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 April 1999]No genetically modified salmon are currently being farmed in the UK, and no applications have been received for the release of genetically modified fish. However, the environmental consequences of the farming of genetically modified fish have been considered by the Department and by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE).

  The Department of the Environment published a research report on the Genetic Modification of Fish—a UK Perspective in November 1994. ACRE Guidance Note 8, issued in March 1997, provides guidance for experimental releases of genetically modified fish.

  Research into GM fish has increased steadily since the first published reports in 1985 and the technology now exists for the routine modification of a variety of fish species. Some modified traits may affect the ecological range of a fish species, for example increasing the temperature range in which they are able to survive and breed. The implications of such changes would need to be carefully considered in the risk assessment before a release could take place.

  The publications offer detailed recommendations on approaches to risk assessment and risk management for GM fish, and for emergency control measures. Guidelines are also provided for carrying out monitoring during and after the release.

  Copies of both these publications are in the House of Commons Library.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide additional funding for areas of outstanding natural beauty; and if he will make a statement. [81614]

  Mr. Meale
  We have already announced an additional £2.5 million for the new Countryside Agency to spend in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and similar landscape areas in 1999–2000.
  628
  The former Countryside Commission has provided advice to the Government on various aspects of the care of protected landscapes. We are still considering all of the issues very carefully and hope to announce some conclusions soon.

  Railway Stations (Staffing)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on the staffing of main stations(a) at night and (b) at other times; what discussions he has had with (i) train operators and (ii) the rail regulator on this issue; and if he will make a statement. [81502]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]There are no absolute requirements in franchise agreements for stations to be staffed at night or at other times. Train Operating Companies (TOCs) must maintain the existing presence of staff at stations to the hours at which trains call unless they provide substitute facilities in relation to customer information and waiting accommodation. All TOCs are party to the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, overseen by the Rail Regulator, which includes obligations covering the hours during which ticket offices must be open and the range of products that must be offered for sale. These obligations are closely in line with the arrangements that existed prior to franchising. The hours of opening of ticket offices cannot be reduced without the permission of the Rail Regulator following a consultation process. No discussions have taken place with (i) the train operators and (ii) the rail regulator on this issue.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with(a) First North Western Trains and (b) other rail operators the effects of removing platform staff on passenger safety. [81503]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]There are no absolute requirements in franchise agreements for platform staff at stations and this is not a health and safety issue. We do, however, consider it very important that passengers perceive the railway as a secure environment and over the past year, operators have been working with the Franchising Director, this Department and the British Transport Police, to deliver the Secure Stations Scheme, which was formally launched in April 1998. This will award accreditation to stations that reach specified standards in design and management, and demonstrate reductions in the crime level and in passengers' perception of crime. A number of stations across the country have now been accredited under the scheme and it is hoped that many more will become accredited in the near future.

  The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), which promotes network-wide projects, is implementing a Code of Practice on Passenger Security which identifies best practice, and encourages operators to co-operate with other organisations to improve security in and around stations.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek a report from the rail regulator on the possible effect
  629
  of the removal of platform staff from Warrington Central Station on the performance targets of First North Western trains. [81504]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]Performance in terms of punctuality and reliability is governed by a financial penalties and incentive regime under the franchise agreement between the Franchising Director and First North Western Trains. That applies to results achieved without regard to the operational methods adopted by the Train Operating Company. I understand that First North Western Trains have suspended their plans for staffing reductions at Warrington Central Station and others in the area while they consult with interested groups, individuals and the trade unions.

  Railway Passenger Safety
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the rail operators on the need to ensure the safety of passengers travelling by train. [81505]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 April 1999]The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) monitors and enforces compliance with the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and its relevant statutory provisions to ensure that safety standards on the railway are maintained and improved where necessary. The HSE has regular meetings with train operators and infrastructure controllers to ensure the safety of passengers travelling by train.

  Bus Passengers
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the percentage of the 1 per cent. increase in bus passengers which has resulted from passengers changing their mode of transport. [81716]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information does not exist for this estimate to be made. The one per cent. overall increase is the net result of many shifts and changing trends in trip making. However, in some cases where significant increases in bus use have occurred, for example following investment in new vehicles and bus priority traffic management measures, 10 per cent. or more of the increase has been estimated to represent former car users. Were this also to apply to the full year increase across England it would represent a reduction of about 3.5 million journeys by car.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of local bus passenger journeys in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99 in (i) London, (ii) English metropolitan areas, (iii) English shire counties and (iv) England. [81714]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The figures up to 1997–98 are taken from tables 10, 13 and 16 of the Transport Statistics Report "Focus on Public Transport Great Britain: 1999 630
  edition", published by The Stationery Office in February 1999. The most recent three years' data are summarised in the table below. Data for 1998–99 will not be available until towards the end of this year.

  Local bus services: passenger journeys by area

  million

  London

  English metropolitan areas

  English shire counties

  England

  1995–96

  1,205

  1,292

  1,265

  3,762

  1996–97

  1,242

  1,246

  1,265

  3,753

  1997–98

  1,294

  1,237

  1,248

  3,779

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those countries which have(a) agreed, (b) failed to agree and (c) not responded to his statement of 10 June 1998 on multilateral agreements on 3rd and 4th freedoms at regional airports. [81713]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following my statement on international access to regional airports in June 1998 my officials approached countries with whom we have air services relations. The following responses have been received:

  (a) Agreed
  Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Fiji, Jamaica, Jordan, South Korea, Malaysia, Maldives, Namibia, Pakistan, Qatar, Tanzania, Turkmenistan.

  (b) Failed to agree
  Armenia, Botswana, Brazil, Egypt, Georgia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen.

  (c) Not responded
  Algeria, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Bangladesh, Chile, Cote D'Ivoire, Congo, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
  Category (c) includes countries with whom there are on-going official discussions about the offer.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to issue the Management Statement for the Countryside Agency. [82052]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the Management Statement has been issued to the Countryside Agency today. The Statement describes the relationship between the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Agency, sets out the role and status of the Agency and covers its accountability to Parliament. It also contains information on the role and responsibilities of the Chairman, Board and Chief Executive, and briefly describes the Agency's organisation.

  A copy of the Statement has today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Firearms Training (Young People)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the types of (i) public and (ii) private institution falling within his area of responsibility in which individuals aged under 18 years may be trained in the use of firearms; and if he will estimate the numbers of individuals receiving such training in each type of institution in each of the last five years. [81136]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Individuals under 18 years of age undertake firearms training in the Regular Forces, Reserves and Cadets. Institutions which carry out such training include recruit schools for initial firearms training, various military units for specific and refresher training and local establishments in the case of Cadets. The three Services do not keep centralised records of such training and, therefore, it is not possible to provide accurate figures of numbers of under 18s who undertake firearms training. Even an estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armed Forces (Under 18s)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if under 18 year olds are currently being deployed in the UK armed forces in the former Yugoslavia. [81437]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are currently 22 service personnel aged under 18 deployed in the UK armed forces in the former Yugoslavia.

  Military Hospitals
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was(a) paid and (b) rebated to his Department by each of the health trusts in which MDHUs operate for the treatment of civilian personnel by the military in each of the last three years. [80573]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Until 31 March 1999, the contribution made by military clinical staff serving in MDHUs to the treatment of civilian patients was treated as a "free good" from my Department to the NHS. Accordingly, no payments were made to my Department by the host Trusts, either directly or by way of a rebate on other charges, for the treatment of civilian personnel by the military.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 17–18, how many times Ministers in his Department met their counterparts in the US Administration between 1 January 1998 and 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the name of the US counterpart. [80824]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  632

  Military Training
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if British military personnel have visited the School of the Americas training establishment at the United States Army base at Fort Benning, Georgia, in each of the last eight years. [81375]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There have been no visits to the School of the Americas training establishment by UK-based military personnel during the last five years, the period for which we have been able to establish figures. The previous British Liaison Officer at Fort Benning, Georgia, made one visit to the School of the Americas training establishment during 1997 as part of his liaison responsibilities. He undertook no training.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to remove the differences within the War Pensions Scheme as between former officers and other ranks. [81485]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The War Scheme is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The MOD and DSS are currently reviewing arrangements for compensating service personnel or their bereaved where disablement or death is due to service in the Forces. The aim is to make proposals for a new compensation scheme that could replace the current War Pension Scheme and the attributable provisions of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. The War Pension Scheme would remain available for those who have already left the forces including current war pensions.

  At present former officers and other ranks received the same level of War Disablement Pension or Gratuity under the War Pension Scheme for the same degree of assessed disablement and regardless of rank. The level of War Widow's Pension, however, is still related to the rank held by the deceased husband in service.

  A separate review is also being conducted of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. This review is examining all the main provisions of that Scheme, including the continuing justification for any differences of treatment between officers and other ranks.

  Defence Estates Organisation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what value of stationery, signage and documentation formerly owned by the Defence Estates Organisation will not be used by Defence Estates, established on 29 March; [81628]

  (2) what was the cost of the relaunch of the Defence Estates Organisation. [81629]

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

  Military Deployment
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current proportion of(a) the Army and (b) Land Command (i) committed and (ii) warned to deploy for operations. [81668]
  633
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As at 15 April, the figures requested were as follows:

  Percentage

  Committed to Operations

  Warned to deploy on operations

  Army personnel

  36.1

  22.5

  Land Command personnel

  55.3

  34.5

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the TA is (i) deployed and (ii) warned to deploy for operations in the Balkans. [81664]

  Mr. George Robertson
  420 members of the Territorial Army (TA) are currently deployed to the Balkans, the majority in Bosnia, and these represent some 0.74 per cent. of the overall TA. It is likely that a further 80 will be deployed shortly, representing a further 0.14 per cent. of the TA.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the Army's armoured infantry battalions and mechanised infantry battalions are(a) currently employed on operations and (b) warned to deploy for operations. [81660]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Three such battalions are currently deployed on operations, and two are warned to deploy.

  Sponsored Body

  Role

  Title

  First name

  Surname

  Remuneration

  British Library Board

  Chairman

  Dr.

  John

  Ashworth

  28,363

  British Library Board

  Member

  Prof.

  Michael

  Anderson

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Sir

  Matthew

  Farrer

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Right hon.

  Peter

  Hordern

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Rodney

  Leach

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Ms

  Penelope

  Lively

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Bernard

  Naylor

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  John

  Ritblat

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Vis

  Walter

  Runciman

  6,839

  British Library Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Paul

  Scherer

  6,839

  British Tourist Authority

  Chairman

  Dr.

  David

  Quarmby

  28,305

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Robert

  Ayling

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Alan

  Britten

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  John

  Jarvis

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Patrick

  McKenna

  7,340

  British Tourist Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Des

  Wilson

  7,340

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Chairman

  Vacant

  46,792

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Deputy Chairman

  Ms

  Jane

  Leighton

  37,250

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Deputy Chairman

  Mrs.

  Suzanne

  Warner

  35,350

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Ms

  Danielle

  Barr

  14,960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  David

  Boulton

  14,960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Dr.

  Fiona

  Caldicott

  14,960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr

  Strachan

  Heppell

  14,960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Rev.

  Rose

  Hudson-Wilkin

  14.960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  Robert

  Kernohan

  14,960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  Uday

  Dholakia

  14,960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Ms

  Sally

  O'Sullivan

  14,960

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  Member

  Mrs.

  Sioned

  Wyn Thomas

  14,960

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Chairman

  Mr.

  Vanni

  Treves

  59,310

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Deputy Chairman

  Mr.

  Barry

  Cox

  18,260

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Member

  Mr.

  Murray

  Grigor

  13,690

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Member

  Mr.

  Andrew

  Graham

  13,690

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Member

  Mr.

  Joe

  Sinyor

  13,690

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Member

  Ms

  Usha

  Prashar

  13,690

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Member

  Mr.

  Robin

  Miller

  13,690

  Channel 4 Television Corporation1

  Member

  Ms

  Sarah

  Radclyffe

  13,690

  English Heritage2

  Chairman

  Sir

  Jocelyn

  Stevens

  476,980

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Ms

  Amanda

  Arrowsmith

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Mrs.

  Bridget

  Cherry

  2,160–15,150

  634

  Brigade Reinforcements (Macedonia)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units from 19 Brigade have reinforced 4 Armoured Brigade for its deployment to Macedonia. [81663]

  Mr. George Robertson
  One company from the 1st Battalion The King's Own Royal Border Regiment, including 30 personnel each from 1stthe Battalion The Highlanders and 1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment, is currently deployed to the Balkans as part of the 4th Armoured Brigade. In addition, 19 Brigade Provost Unit (Royal Military Police) is currently in the process of returning to the United Kingdom from the Balkans.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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 7band which applies. [80755]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 April 1999]The information on appointees who receive an annual remuneration or salary is listed in the following table. Some other appointees may receive a daily remuneration (pro-rated where necessary) where the public body has the statutory power to make such a payment.
  635

  Sponsored Body

  Role

  Title

  First name

  Surname

  Remuneration

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Councillor

  Philip

  Davis

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Mr.

  Andrew

  Fane

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Lord

  Charles

  Faringdon

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Prof.

  Eric

  Fernie

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Lady

  Elizabeth

  Gass

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  HRH

  Richard

  Gloucester

  32,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Mr.

  Lloyd

  Grossman

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Mrs.

  Candida

  Lycett Green

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Ms

  Kirsty

  McLeod

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Mr.

  Richard

  Morris

  2,160–15,150

  English Heritage2

  Commissioner

  Miss

  Susan

  Underwood

  2,160–15,150

  English Sports Council

  Chairman

  Mr.

  Trevor

  Brooking

  23,132

  English Sports Council

  Vice-Chairman

  Mr.

  Gerald

  Dennis

  13,945

  English Sports Council

  Vice-Chairman

  Mr.

  Des

  Wilson

  13,945

  English Tourist Board

  Chairman

  Dr.

  David

  Quarmby

  28,305

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Peter

  Chappelow

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr.

  David

  Lunn

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mr.

  Peter

  Moore

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Ms

  Eve

  Pollard

  7,340

  English Tourist Board

  Member

  Mrs.

  Jennifer

  Robson

  7,340

  Football Licensing Authority

  Chairman

  Mr.

  Clive

  Sherling

  13,105

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Dr.

  Judith

  Fisher

  5240

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Tony

  Gee

  5240

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Christopher

  Lewis

  5240

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Mervyn

  Sheldon

  5240

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Prof.

  Margaret

  Talbot

  5240

  Football Licensing Authority

  Member

  Dr.

  Sam

  Thorburn

  5240

  Independent Televisiion Commission

  Chairman

  Sir

  Robin

  Biggam

  69,780

  Independent Television Commission

  Deputy Chairman

  Lord

  Richard

  Holme

  17,910

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  Mr.

  Alistair

  Balls

  13,430

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  Dr.

  John

  Beynon

  13,430

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  Sir

  Michael

  Checkland

  13,430

  Independent Television Commission

  Member

  Ms

  Jude

  Goffe

  13,430

  Independent Television Commission'

  Member

  Mr.

  John

  Ranelagh

  13,430

  Independent Television Commission

  Member Northern Ireland

  Dr.

  Maria

  Moloney

  13,430

  Independent Television Commission

  Member Scotland

  Dr.

  Michael

  Shea

  13,430

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Chairman

  Lord

  David

  Puttnam

  22,000

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Chairman

  The hon.

  David

  Sieff

  24,000

  National Lottery Charities Board2

  Member England

  Mrs.

  Stella

  Clarke

  12–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board2

  Member N. Ireland

  Mr.

  John

  Simpson

  12–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board2

  Member UK

  Mrs.

  Amanda

  Jordan

  12–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board2

  Member UK

  Sir

  Adam

  Ridley

  12–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board2

  Member Wales

  Mr.

  Tom

  Jones

  12–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board2

  Member Scotland

  Mr.

  Garth

  Morrison

  12–16,000

  National Lottery Charities Board2

  Member NI

  Mr.

  Noel

  Stewart

  12–16,000

  National Lottery Commission

  Chairman

  Mr.

  Brian

  Pomeroy

  484,275

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Dame

  Helena

  Shovelton

  443,270

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Ms

  Harriet

  Spice

  443.270

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Mr.

  Robin

  Squire

  443,270

  National Lottery Commission

  Commissioner

  Ms

  Hilary

  Blume

  443,270

  New Opportunities Fund

  Chairman

  Lady

  Jill

  Pitkeathley

  22,000

  Public Lending Right Registrar

  Registrar

  Dr.

  James

  Parker

  33,797

  Radio Authority

  Chairman

  Sir

  Peter

  Gibbings

  52,330

  Radio Authority

  Deputy Chairman

  Mr.

  Michael

  Moriaty

  17,910

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mrs.

  Sheila

  Hewitt

  8,960

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Andrew

  Reid

  8.960

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Michael

  Reupke

  8,960

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  Feargal

  Sharkey

  8,960

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Lady

  Sheil

  8,960

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mrs.

  Helen

  Tennant

  8.960

  Radio Authority

  Member

  Mr.

  David

  Witherow

  8,960

  S4C

  Chairman

  Ms

  Elan

  Stephens

  40,400

  S4C

  Member

  Ms

  Enid

  Hafwen Rowlands

  7,460

  S4C

  Member

  Mr.

  Cefin

  Campbell

  7,460

  S4C

  Member

  Mr.

  Peter

  Davies

  7,460

  S4C

  Member

  Ms

  Janet

  Lewis-Jones

  7,460

  S4C

  Member

  Mr.

  Nic

  Parry

  7,460

  S4C

  Member

  Mrs.

  Janice

  Rowlands

  7,460

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  Chairman

  Sir

  Rodney

  Walker

  23,132

  1The Secretary of State for DCMS only has an approving role in these appointments.

  2Remuneration is shown as a range where it is depending on changeable factors (membership of committees etc).

  3Remuneration not claimed.

  4Pro rata

  5Per day

  Note:

  Except where specified, all remuneration is shown on an annual basis.
  636 637

  Millennium Landmark Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) which millennium landmark projects have undergone changes from the original approved scheme; which schemes were involved; and what changes have been made; [81605]

  (2) how many millennium landmark projects have had significant elements removed from the original approved scheme; and which elements have been lost. [81604]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Department

  Purpose

  Cost (£)

  Cabinet Office

  Collection of baseline data on public services, which will be used for tracking

  221,900

  Cabinet Office

  Second wave of research (3,000 telephone interviews) into attitudes to a wide range of services, with a particular focus on transport, local democracy and complaints handling

  89,000

  Women's Unit Cabinet Office

  To complement the Ministerial Roadshow element of the Listening to Women exercise which aims to identify issues of importance to women. (24 focus groups)

  63,800

  Cabinet Office

  To collect the experiences of citizens using public services to evaluate how well Departments and agencies work together to deliver a joined-up service, and identify suggestions for improvement. The work was commissioned as part of the research for the Modernising Government White Paper. (14 depth interviews)

  12,750

  DfEE

  To investigate parents' attitudes to value added information in school performance tables (6 focus groups)

  12,400

  Office of Science and Technology, DTI

  To explore public attitudes to biosciences regulatory system (1,000 face-to-face interviews)—research not yet complete

  90,000

  A third wave of qualitative research has also been commissioned (the results of which will be published in July) comprising:

  Department

  Purpose

  Cost (£)

  Post Office Counters

  Attitudes access to central and local government services using 'one-stop shops'.

  17,000

  Health and Safety Executive

  Gas safety and regulation

  14,750

  DETR

  Research to support the Urban White Paper and Housing Green Paper

  19,500

  DfEE

  Public attitudes to the 'Listening House'

  2,500

  Cabinet Office

  Standards of service the public receive when they contact local and central government agencies

  6,000

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Motability Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total expenditure on the Motability scheme in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [81397]

  (2) how many manufacturers supplied vehicles under the Motability scheme in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [81399]

  Total Gross Departmental Expenditure on the Motability Scheme in each of the last five financial years

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 outturn

  1996–97 outturn

  1997–98 outturn

  £million 1998–99 estimated outturn

  Motability Administration

  3

  4

  4

  5

  5

  Motability Equipment/Drivers Fund

  2

  3

  3

  4

  5

  Total Motability Expenditure

  5

  7

  7

  8

  9

  Note: Figures rounded to the nearest million. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

CABINET OFFICE

  People's Panel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list(a) what items of research have been commissioned from the People's Panel by Government (i) departments, (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies, (b) their purposes and (c) their cost. [80690]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The following is the information:

  (3) how many vehicles were bought under the Motability scheme in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [81398]

  (4) what is the maximum amount of money available to a claimant under the Motability scheme to assist in the purchase of a vehicle. [81400]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the tables.
  639

  The number of manufacturers, including vehicle conversion specialists, who have supplied vehicles under the Motability Scheme in each of the last five calendar years

  Year

  Number

  1994

  20

  1995

  20

  1996

  23

  1997

  25

  1998

  27

  The total number of vehicles bought under the Mutability Scheme in each of the last five years

  Year

  Number

  1994

  90,125

  1995

  105,025

  1996

  125,529

  1997

  137,509

  1998

  132,698

  The maximum amount of money available to a claimant under the Motability scheme to assist in the purchase of a vehicle is the weekly amount of the benefits which allow access to the Scheme. These are £41.25 and £37.00 for War Pensioners Mobility Supplement and the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance respectively. Also, grants are available from Motability' s charitable funds along with the Mobility Equipment Fund and Drivers Fund. There vary in amount from small sums to pay for initial deposits and grants of over £30,000 depending on the type of driving solution recommended by Motability. In respect of grants, Motability does ask its customers to contribute as much as they reasonably can towards the cost of their vehicle.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants are awaiting the determination of appeals against loss of reduced earnings allowance. [81427]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested as the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) do not record the reason for appeals against different benefit types. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The latest available figures show that as at October 1998, the total number of appeals involving Reduced Earnings Allowance awaiting hearing was 2,618.

  Source:

  100 per cent. computer extract from the ITS Generic Appeals Processing System (GAPS).

  Post Office (Bar-code Scanners)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the installation of bar-code scanners for girocheques in post offices is a term of the Department' s contract with the Post Office. [81696]
  640
  Angela Eagle
  The installation of bar-code scanners in post offices is not a term of the Department's contracts with Post Office Counters Ltd. (POCL), nor is it a term of the Department's contract with Girobank plc who, in turn, contract with POCL for the encashment of girocheques at post offices.

  Pensioners (Average Incomes)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the most recent estimates of the average incomes of pensioners in OECD countries as a proportion of average earnings. [81733]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo Refugees
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to take steps to enable refugees from Kosovo to accept temporary work on the land in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [81566]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  Evacuees from Kosovo who arrive in the United Kingdom under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme will be granted exceptional leave to enter and, as a consequence, permitted to take employment immediately. In common with asylum applicants of other nationalities, those from Kosovo who have arrived independently in the United Kingdom will be entitled to seek permission to take employment if they have been waiting for a decision on their case for six months.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many refugees from Kosovo she expects will be given shelter in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [81564]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The primary aim of the Government is to care for refugees in the region, and to facilitate their return to Kosovo. We are working together with our European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation partners and with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

  We have long made clear that we stand ready to respond to requests for UNHCR to take vulnerable refugees from Kosovo on a temporary basis. We have agreed with UNHCR that any recommendations for evacuation from the region should be co-ordinated through the office of the UNHCR.

  I announced on 20 April that arrangements had been agreed for the admission of 120 evacuees, mainly women and children, expected in the next few days. This decision was made following advice from UNHCR that the refugees were deemed to be vulnerable and in need of temporary protection outside the region.
  641

HEALTH

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region, the income to each NHS trust and health authority, in each of the last 10 years for the sale of assets, land and properties; what uses this income has been put to; and what estimate he has made by region, of the income to each NHS trust and health authority, for each of the next 10 years, from the sale of assets, land and property. [76478]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]Information on the income of each National Health Service trust and health authority from the sale of assets, land and properties from 1991/92 has been placed in the Library. Information in respect of earlier years is not available.

  Income from the sale of assets is available for re-use within the NHS.

  Information is not available centrally on individual NHS trust and health authority forecasts of future income from the sale of assets, land and property.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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(a) subgroups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79266]

  Ms Jowell
  Most task forces and reviews are short-term bodies established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. Each establishes the working methods best suited to carrying out the work in the time available, and would normally provide a summary of its working methods in its report. Given the short term nature of task forces and reviews it is unlikely that many of them will set up sub-groups, working parties or subsidiary committees. However, this information is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [79284]

  Ms Jowell
  The reviews and taskforces, established since 1 May 1997 which have published their final reports are:Review of cervical screening services at Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust (established 23 June 1997; published 20 October 1997)
  Review of the law relating to surrogacy (established II June 1997; published October 1998)
  Review of evidence relating to silicone breast implants (established May 1997, published July 1998)
  Review of the breast screening programme in Devon and the implications for the breast screening programme as a whole (established 9 June 1997; published 3 November 1997)
  642
  Strategic review of Health Services in London (established 20 June 1997; published 18 November 1997)
  Review of the latest information available on inequalities in Health (established 11 July 1997, published 26 November 1998)
  Independent review of proposals for the transfer of bulk blood processing and testing from Liverpool to Manchester (established 14 August 1997, published 8 April 1998)
  Review of NHS Charter (established June 1997, published December 1998)
  Review of Prescribing, Supply and Administration of Medicines (established 21 March 1997; reports published 8 March 1999)
  Ministerial task force on the Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review (established November 1997; published 5 November 1998)
  Review of the written consent requirements in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (established 6 February 1997; published June 1998).

  The reviews and taskforces, established since May 1997, which have yet to publish reports are:
  Mental Health Act Review (established September 1998, estimated publication date autumn 1999)
  Thoracic Surgical Services Review (established July 1998, estimated publication date May 1999)
  United Kingdom, Transplant Support Service Authority Review (established September 1998, estimated publication date May 1999)
  Review of general anaesthesia and sedation with dental treatment (established October 1998, publication date to be decided)
  Review of the wheelchair voucher scheme and the provision of electrical and indoor wheelchairs (established November 1998, estimated publication date Spring 1999)
  Eight regional task forces to support the Waiting List Action Team (established November 1997, on-going activity with no final report expected)
  NHS efficiency task force (established June 1997, on-going activity with no final report expected)
  NHS task force on staff involvement (established March 1998, estimated publication date spring 1999)
  A and E Modernisation Team1 (established in March 1999, first annual report due in April 2000)
  Independent review of mobile phone use (announced 8 April 1999, terms of reference and membership to follow).

  Normally termination of a review or task force coincides with publication of a final report. However, two are on-going activities from which no single final report is expected, and one (marked1) will continue to meet beyond the date of publication shown.

  Schoolchildren
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the changes in the last five years in the average weight and height of schoolchildren in England and Wales; and if he will list the changes in the last five years in the (i) consumption of(a) dietary carbohydrate and (b) refined sugar products and (ii) total calorie intake and average levels of exercise of schoolchildren. [78135]

  Ms Jowell
  [pursuant to her reply, 26 March 1999, c. 424–25]I regret that my previous answer contained
  643
  incorrect information for 1995 for the weight of girls aged 11–15. I am also now in a position to provide the information on heights and weights for 1997 separately. The revised reply is as follows:

  The heights and weights of primary schoolchildren were monitored in England between 1972 and 1994 by the National Study of Health and Growth (NSHG). No similar information is available for Wales. In 1995, the Health Survey for England (HSE) took over the monitoring of heights and weights of children and also measured their physical activity in 1997. The data for 1995 and 1996 were published in HSE Reports and the combined data for 1995–97 were published in December 1998 in the Report "The Health of Young People ' 95–' 97".

  The tables give heights and weights for 5 to 10 year olds for 1994 from NSHG and from HSE for 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1995–97 combined and on the same basis for comparison purposes with NSHG for 1995–97 combined.

  Average weights (kilogrammes) of English primary schoolchildren

  Health Survey for England

  Age at last birthday (years)

  National Study of Health and Growth 19941

  Health Survey for England 1995–971

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995–97

  Boys

  5

  19.8

  19.7

  20.5

  20.1

  20.6

  20.4

  6

  22.1

  22.3

  22.4

  23.1

  23.1

  22.9

  7

  24.8

  25.1

  25.4

  26.0

  25.7

  25.8

  8

  27.7

  28.4

  29.1

  28.8

  29.4

  29.1

  9

  31.4

  31.1

  32.4

  32.1

  31.6

  32.0

  10

  34.8

  34.7

  35.0

  35.9

  35.7

  35.6

  Girls

  5

  19.3

  19.6

  20.6

  20.5

  20.1

  20.4

  6

  22.0

  22.2

  22.7

  22.6

  23.1

  22.8

  7

  24.9

  25.2

  26.0

  26.0

  25.6

  25.9

  8

  27.7

  28.4

  29.3

  28.1

  29.2

  28.8

  9

  31.9

  31.9

  31.9

  33.5

  32.9

  32.7

  10

  35.5

  36.6

  38.3

  36.9

  36.3

  37.1

  1White children only

  Average heights (centimetres) of English primary schoolchildren

  Health Survey for England

  Age at last birthday (years)

  National Study for Health and Growth 19941

  Health Survey for England 1995–971

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995–97

  Boys

  5

  113

  112

  112

  112

  112

  112

  6

  119

  119

  119

  119

  119

  119

  7

  125

  125

  125

  125

  125

  125

  8

  131

  131

  131

  131

  131

  131

  9

  137

  136

  136

  136

  136

  136

  10

  141

  141

  141

  141

  142

  141

  Girls

  5

  111

  112

  113

  112

  112

  112

  6

  118

  118

  119

  117

  119

  118

  7

  124

  124

  123

  125

  124

  124

  8

  130

  130

  130

  130

  130

  130

  9

  136

  136

  135

  136

  136

  136

  10

  141

  142

  143

  142

  141

  142

  1White children only

  644
  Heights and weights for children aged 11 to 15 years in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are given, along with the data for 1995–97 combined, which are the baseline from which changes will be monitored.

  The extensive data on the types and levels of exercise among English schoolchildren in 1997 are given in tables 8.1 to 8.15 in the Report "The Health of Young People '96–'97". In Wales, the Youth Health Surveys carried out by Health Promotion Wales have shown that among 11 to 16 year olds, the proportion exercising for at least 4 hours per week outside school was 24 per cent. in 1994 and 29 per cent. in 1996.

  There are no recent data on the consumption of dietary carbohydrate, refined sugar products, and total calorie intake of schoolchildren. However, fieldwork for the National Diet and Nutritional Survey of young people aged 4–18 years which covered Great Britain has been completed and the results are being analysed. This should provide data on all these factors and also on average levels of exercise. A report is expected at the end of this year.
  645

  Heights and weights of English children aged 11–15 years Health Survey for England

  Weight (kg)

  Height (cm)

  Age at last birthday (years)

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995–97

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1995–97

  Boys

  11

  40.9

  40.1

  39.7

  40.2

  147

  147

  147

  147

  12

  44.8

  44.9

  44.6

  44.8

  153

  152

  152

  153

  13

  51.6

  50.1

  50.7

  50.8

  162

  159

  159

  160

  14

  57.0

  56.4

  55.8

  56.4

  166

  165

  165

  166

  15

  62.6

  62.3

  63.8

  62.9

  172

  172

  172

  172

  Girls

  11

  43.0

  42.0

  42.3

  42.4

  148

  148

  149

  148

  12

  45.9

  49.1

  47.4

  47.5

  154

  154

  154

  154

  13

  51.0

  51.1

  53.3

  51.8

  158

  158

  158

  158

  14

  57.1

  56.4

  56.7

  56.7

  162

  161

  161

  161

  15

  58.3

  57.7

  59.3

  58.4

  163

  161

  163

  162

  HIV
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the anonymised programme of HIV surveillance in England and Wales, setting out for each survey currently in operation or planned(a) the location, (b) the targeted populations, (c) the clinical reasons for initial collection of specimens, (d) the number of specimen collection venues, (e) the annual specimen numbers, (f) the most recent prevalence data, (g) whether the consent of those tested was sought for entry into the survey and (h) whether those tested were informed that they were to be entered into the survey. [80695]

  Ms Jowell
  The Unlinked Anonymous monitoring programme monitors the prevalence of HIV infection in accessible groups of the population and is a unique source of unbiased prevalence data. An important aspect of the programme is that it estimates prevalent infections among groups in whom substantial proportions of infections remain undiagnosed and therefore unreported through other surveillance systems.

  The data collected in the unlinked anonymised programme of HIV surveillance in England and Wales are published every year so that they can be used by those planning services or health promotion. Copies of the latest

  Unlinked anonymous seroprevalence monitoring programme: populations under surveillance and programme surveys

  Population under surveillance

  Programme surveys1

  Clinical reason for collection of specimen

  Location

  Behaviourally vulnerable

  Homosexual and bisexual men

  Genitourinary medicine clinic attenders

  Syphilis serology

  National

  Heterosexual men and women with greater than average sexual partner change

  Genitourinary medicine clinic attenders

  Syphilis serology

  National

  Injecting drug users

  Treatment and support agencies for injecting drug users2

  Voluntary collection of saliva. This survey also detects evidence of current and prior-infection with hepatitis B

  National

  At lower or general risk

  Pregnant women

  Infant dried blood spot

  Guthrie cards for metabolic screening

  National

  Antenatal

  Rubella serology

  London

  Termination of pregnancy

  Blood grouping

  London

  Adults aged 16 to 49 years

  Patients treated in hospital

  Blood counts

  London

  1In addition, a voluntary unlinked anonymous HIV survey of prisoners (using saliva specimens) was piloted in 1993 and undertaken in 1997.

  2 The genitourinary medicine clinic survey also provides prevalence data for injecting drug users.

  646
  annual report "Prevalence of HIV in England and Wales 1997", annual report of the Unlinked Anonymous Prevalence Monitoring Programme and the summary report are available in the Library. Prevalence of HIV in England and Wales 1997, a summary of data to the end of 1997, is also available on the Department's internet site. These publications provide full information on the surveys which were carried out in 215 centres in 1997 throughout England and Wales. The tables summarise the main data requested on location, targeted populations, clinical reason for initial sample collection, number of specimen collection venues, annual specimen number and prevalence data.

  With regard to obtaining consent for entry into the survey and informing patients about the surveys, posters and leaflets about the surveys are available in 15 different languages for participating centres to display and thus inform patients that their sample may be used in these surveys. These materials explain the aims of the UA surveys and that the programme is designed to ensure that the samples are anonymised before being tested and thus the results cannot be traced back to individuals. They also refer patients to healthcare workers for further information and explain that they can ask to exclude their samples from the surveys if they so wish, and that their wishes will be respected.
  647

  Prevalence of HIV-1 infection in the survey groups, 1997

  London

  England and Wales outside London

  Survey

  Number tested

  Number HIV-1 infected

  Prevalence range Per cent.

  Number tested

  Number HIV-1 infected

  Prevalence range(%)1

  Prevalence ratio London vs elsewhere2

  Male

  Genitourinary medicine clinic attenders:

  Homo/bisexual

  4,344

  392

  9.0

  4.9–15

  1,523

  58

  3.8

  0–8.0

  2.4

  Heterosexual

  13,504

  108

  0.8

  0.43–1.4

  16,821

  21

  0.12

  0–0.29

  6.4

  Injecting drug users attending agencies3

  406

  16

  3.9

  —

  1,605

  6

  0.37

  0–1.3

  10.5

  Hospital blood counts (sentinel group)

  14,490

  102

  0.70

  0.15–1.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Female

  Genitourinary medicine clinic attenders:

  Heterosexual

  18,230

  128

  0.7

  0.39–1.1

  15,647

  16

  0.10

  0–0.23

  6.9

  Injecting drug users attending agencies3

  131

  2

  1.5

  —

  489

  2

  0.41

  4—

  3.7

  Pregnant women at delivery (infant dried blood sports)5

  103,981

  195

  0.19

  0–0.51

  348,442

  56

  0.02

  0–0.10

  11.7

  Pregnant women seeking terminations

  7,298

  40

  0.55

  0–0.78

  —

  ——

  —

  —

  Hospital blood counts (sentinel group)

  27,059

  73

  0.27

  0.040–0.44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1The range within a category is the lowest and highest prevalence recorded in individual clinics (genitourinary medicine survey), regions (injecting drug users survey), districts (infant dried blood spot survey) or hospitals (termination of pregnancy, antenatal and hospital surveys).

  2 The ratio by which the prevalence of infection in London is greater than the prevalence in England and Wales outside London.

  3Attending specialist centres for injecting drug users.

  4Range 0–7.1 per cent. region with highest prevalence had only 14 samples from women.

  5 In Northern and Yorkshire region data for pregnant women come from the antenatal survey.

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson Inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80532]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 14 April 1999,Official Report, columns 239–40.

  The Department has already set up a number of initiatives in the past two years on race equality issues and we are taking stock of these in the light of the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report. In considering the implications of the Inquiry's recommendations, it will be important to develop a systematic response across Government and the Department is working with the Home Office and other Government Departments to take this forward.

  Cancer Information
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what Government funding is available for publishing cancer information to(a) the public and (b) medical professionals; [80274]

  (2) what proposals he has to publicise cancer care information on the internet. [80275]

  Mr. Hutton
  As part of the wider health information strategy, a Cancer Information Strategy is currently being developed which will streamline information sources. Areas for action identified include developing a core cancer information pack for patients, carers and other users; information requirements of primary care; and patient centred information systems. The new National Health Service Information Strategy and the Cancer Information Strategy will support the new NHS in its development of integrated care, in which the focus is on people and their needs rather than institutions.
  648
  The overall strategy will take some time to complete and initial work has started to specify the relevant components of the strategy and to identify the cancer information requirements for all user groups and will include a business case to justify the investment in information in relation to the benefits to be achieved. The Cancer Information Strategy Steering Group will be making an interim report in September.

  Contraceptive Pills
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to inform the public of the decision by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines on the safety of the third generation contraceptive pill. [81035]

  Ms Jowell
  An announcement was made to the media on 7 April 1999 giving details of the outcome of the review by the Medicines Commission of "third generation" combined oral contraceptive pills, containing gestodene or desogestrel, and the risk of venous thrombo-embolism. Copies of the announcement have been placed in the Library.

  Doctors and other family planning health practitioners were informed about the Medicines Commission via an Epinet message on 7 April. This included an information sheet for them to give to patients. The next edition of the bulletin Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance, which will appear on the Medicines Control Agency's web site, will also provide information for doctors and pharmacists.

  Patient information leaflets supplied with third generation combined oral contraceptives containing the new advice are expected from mid-year onwards.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will commission research into the mechanisms of central fatigue in multiple sclerosis; [81343]
  649
  (2) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the impact of clinical psychology in the management of multiple sclerosis. [81344]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government fund health and medical research in a number of ways.

  The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of relevance to the National Health Service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme. In addition, the Medical Research Council (MRC)—which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  Priorities for departmental research and development support for the development of policy are determined through discussion with policy colleagues, the Departmental Research Committee and Ministers. In the NHS R&D Programme, priorities take account of widespread consultation with those using, delivering and managing services, within a framework overseen by the Central Research and Development Committee for the NHS. In all cases, priorities for our budgets reflect analysis of the burden of disease, potential benefits, Government priorities and take account of the responsibilities and work of other funders.

  Management of much of the research supported by the NHS R&D Levy is devolved and details of expenditure at project level are not collected routinely by the Department.

  Project details of work directly funded by the Department or supported through the NHS R&D Levy can be found on the National Research Register (NRR). This is available in the Library and most medical libraries on CD Rom, and on the Internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm. The NRR also contains many details of projects/trials funded by the MRC and other funders.

  Within our programmes of research there is nothing specifically relating to clinical psychology or the mechanism of central fatigue.

  The Department is currently considering work to look at care packages for those with multiple sclerosis, and has funded a study entitled "Health and independence through education: a controlled evaluation", which aims to assess the value of education in promoting health and independence for people with progressive neurological disorders such as MS.

  We have asked those who manage the priority setting process to ensure that the mechanism of central fatigue in multiple sclerosis is included in consideration of future research priorities.

  The Medical Research Council support for research into MS and associated demyelinating diseases was estimated at £640,000 in 1997–98. This work covered both basic and applied research.
  650
  In addition, the MRC funds a considerable amount of basic underpinning research in broad related areas such as immunology and cellular medicine.

  The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. In addition, regional offices of the NHS Executive run response mode funding schemes to which applications of relevance to the NHS can be made. Awards are made by both the NHS and the MRC according to the scientific quality and importance of proposals.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the rates of(a) schizophrenia and (b) depression among (i) Afro-Carribeans and (ii) the British white population. [81415]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are aware of research that shows that African-Carribeans are diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia 3 to 6 times more often than the white population. Although the reasons for this are not clear cut, a recent survey published by the Policy Studies Institute showed the annual prevalence of non-affective psychosis was somewhat less than twice as high as the white population. Research also shows that the incidence of depression is probably under diagnosed for those from ethnic minorities. In 1994 the first national psychiatric morbidity survey revealed that about 1 in 7 adults aged 16–64 had suffered some sort of neurotic problem in the week prior to interview. The most frequent disorder was mixed anxiety and depressive disorder (71 per 1000).?

  Renal Services
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding geographical inequality in renal provision; and what measures he plans to address the problem in the next three years. [81439]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received a number of representations and are aware of the variations in provision. We acknowledge the concerns which have been expressed and we are taking steps to address them.

  Centrally issued guidance on specialist commissioning and the National Priorities Guidance have both emphasised the need for health authorities and National Health Service trusts to review the existing provision of renal services and to plan for and to commission increased and equitable high-quality provision.

  We are planning to issue guidance shortly which will be designed to provide further advice and assistance to health authorities and National Health Service trusts. This guidance will include information from a survey of renal services which is being carried out to ascertain the current position.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the establishment of a national renal service framework; and if he will make a statement. [81441]

  Mr. Hutton
  A rolling programme of national service frameworks (NSFs) was launched in April 1998. The first two frameworks being developed are on coronary heart
  651
  disease and on mental health; these will be followed by NSFs on older people (spring 2000) and diabetes (spring 2001).

  The suggestion that renal services should be the subject of a national service framework was raised by representatives of the National Kidney Federation at their meeting last year with my noble Friend the Baroness Hayman. Since then, an Early Day Motion supporting this proposal has been tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). There have also been twenty-one letters of support from hon. Members to Ministers. There are currently no plans for a national service framework for kidney disease. It is likely, however, that the diabetes NSF will look at some aspects of renal provision as renal failure is a complication of diabetes.

  We will continue to work with the professional and voluntary groups concerned to look at ways in which we can develop and improve the provision of services for people with kidney disease.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected increase in the next three years in the number of kidney patients(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) in Bexley and Greenwich District; and what steps he intends to take to meet such increases in demand. [81440]

  Mr. Hutton
  The provision of renal replacement therapy (dialysis and transplantation) for people with end-stage renal failure (ESRF) has increased year on year. From 1993 to 1995 the number of patients in England receiving treatment for ESRF rose by 20 per cent.—nearly 4,000 additional patients.

  The projected increase in demand for such services is estimated at 9 per cent. per annum. Though this figure is not broken down by region, it is likely to be higher in areas where there is a high population of elderly people or a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities. A revision of the epidemiological needs assessment (published in 1994) will be issued soon, setting out the current level of need and taking ethnicity into account.

  Guidance issued in October 1998 on commissioning arrangements for specialist services identified renal services as a priority, and emphasised the need for health authorities to plan on a long-term basis for the needs of their populations. In addition, a Health Service Circular on renal services will be published in the next few months; this will make clear the need for Health Authorities to review levels of renal services and to plan to meet the expected increase in demand.

  Bexley and Greenwich Health Authority is a constituent member of the South East Thames Renal Steering Group. The group has carried out a study into the projected demand for renal services across the south east Thames area. Its work has resulted in the decision to open a satellite renal unit at Greenwich, and a further satellite unit at Lewisham is planned.

  Organ Procurement
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received advocating the 652
  establishment of a transplant commission to review the organ procurement system; and if he will make a statement. [81442]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have received one representation from the Royal College of Surgeons. A College working party has reviewed the provision of organ transplantation in England and Wales, and in its report has recommended the establishment of a National Transplant Service. We are grateful to the Royal College of Surgeons for the work done by the working party in analysing the problems and producing its report which will be taken into account in the current review of the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority. This review is wide-ranging and will be determining what central support transplant services require, including the issue of organ procurement, and how this is best delivered.

  Health Records
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the status is of a section 6(b) note in health records.[81492]

  Mr. Denham
  A note attached to a health record under section 6(2)(b) of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 does not alter anything in the record, but will form part of that survey in the same way as the existing information.

  NHS Direct
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the(a) number and (b) percentage of calls to NHS Direct which relate to back pain; and what advice NHS Direct has offered callers. [81609]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, each of the NHS Direct pilot sites will be able to provide relevant information for the area it covers.

  Back pain can result from a variety of causes and the advice NHS Direct offers callers reflects clinically recognised best practice relating to the specific cause and symptoms of the back pain.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions his Department has used an emergency control order to respond to instances of food poisoning or contamination in each of the last five years. [81613]

  Ms Jowell
  I made an Emergency Control Order under Section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990 on 20 May 1998. This was followed by two Amendment Orders on 20 May 1998 and 10 July 1998 respectively. No other Emergency Control Orders under this section of the Act have been made by Health Ministers in the last 5 years.

  Cancer Centres
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) designated and (b) accredited regional cancer centres, indicating the date of designation and accreditation in each case. [81731]

  Mr. Hutton
  Early implementation of the Calman/Hine Report reflected the different staring points in regions of the National Health Service and allowed the designation
  653
  processes to fit local circumstances. There are currently no rigid criteria for the designation or accreditation of cancer centres. We are in the process of developing a set of common national standards and performance measures against the new performance framework which will apply across the country.

  The following is a list of cancer centres by region with the date of designation where available.

  South West Region

  There are five cancer centres in South and West Region. All were designated in 1996, and redesignated in February 1999.

  Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire

  Devon and Cornwall (Exeter)

  Devon and Cornwall (Plymouth)

  Dorset

  Three Counties

  London

  There are five cancer centres in London. All were provisionally designated in 1997.

  South East London

  South West London

  North West London

  North Central London

  North East London

  Trent

  Four cancer centres were designated in Trent in 1995

  Sheffield Cancer Centre

  Nottingham Cancer Centre

  Derby Cancer Centre

  Leicester Cancer Centre

  West Midlands

  The West Midland are currently assessing 21 Acute NHS trusts as designated centres for 14 different cancer types

  Eastern

  Eastern Region have designated networks for the provision of services for up to 10 tumour sites. Designation was given to the following trusts in 1997.

  Bedford

  Luton and Dunstable

  Addenbrooke's

  Hinchingbrooke

  Papworth

  Norfolk and Norwich

  James Paget

  Peterborough

  King's Lynn

  Ipswich Hospital

  West Suffolk

  There are also two cancer centres from the former North Thames Region now located in Eastern Region which were designated in 1998.

  Mount Vernon

  Southend

  Northern and Yorkshire

  The four cancer centres in Northern and Yorkshire Region were all designated in 1995.

  Hull

  Leeds

  Newcastle

  Teesside

  654
  North West

  North West Region are in the process of designating their Cancer Centres, Preston, Merseyside and Manchester in 1999–2000.

  South East Region

  There are five cancer centres in South East Region. Designated in 1996.

  Southampton

  Portsmouth

  Provisionally designated in 1997

  Brighton

  Kent

  Guildford

  South East Region now also contains the following cancer networks from the former Oxford and Anglia Region.

  Royal Battle and Berkshire

  Heatherwood and Wrexham

  South Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes

  Stoke Mandeville

  Northampton

  Kettering

  Oxford Radcliffe

  Horton General

  Radcliffe Infirmary.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the working group on breast screening set up by the Chief Medical Officer in October 1998. [81735]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Chief Medical Officer set up a working group in October 1998 to assess the workforce pressures in the breast screening programme and to identify possible means to address the pressures. The group has now made a report to the Chief Medical Officer who is considering this and the issue of future publication.

  NHS Pensions
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the cost to(a) the West Suffolk Hospital NHS Trust and (b) Suffolk Health Authority of increased employer pension contributions arising from changes in the 1997 and 1998 Budgets to Advanced Corporation Tax. [81673]

  Ms Jowell
  The withdrawal of Advanced Corporation Tax has had no effect on employer contributions in the National Health Service Pension Scheme. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) by my then right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1997,Official Report, column 1.

  MMR
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the take-up rate has been for measles, mumps and rubella vaccination for 1998–99 and the preceding four years in(a) Manchester, (b) the North West and (c) England. [81717]
  655
  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 300. The figures for 1998–99 will be available towards the end of the year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public appointments for

  Public appointments

  Number of members

  Remuneration

  Advisers to the Home Secretary on representations against Exclusion under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989

  3

  £215 per diem

  Annual Reviewer of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989

  1

  £297 per diem

  Charity Commissioners

  5 (2 full time, 3 part time)

  Salaries linked to SCS pay scales

  Chief Surveillance Commissioner and Commissioners

  1 Chief Commissioner, 6 Commissioners

  Salary range: £35,000 to £55,000

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary

  1 Chief Inspector 5 Inspectors

  Pay scale for Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabularies linked to Chief Police Officers' pay

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons

  1

  Salary linked to Senior CMI Service (SCS) pay scales

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation

  1

  Salary linked to Senior Civil Service (SCS) pay scales

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Complaints Audit Committee

  3

  £203 per diem

  Independent Assessor of Miscarriage of Justice Compensation

  1

  £350 per case

  Interception of Communications Commissioner

  1

  £630 per diem

  Prisons Ombudsman

  1

  Salary range: £41,550 to £65,270

  Selection Panels for Independent Members of Police Authorities for 41 Provincial Forces

  41

  Hourly rate determined by individual local authorities

  Service Authority for National Criminal Intelligence Service

  5

  £16 per hour subject to daily and annual maxima

  Service Authority of National Crime Squad

  5

  £16 per hour subject to daily and annual maxima

  Youth Justice Board

  Chair plus 11 members

  Chair £48,000 Members £136 per diem

  Immigration Services Tribunal
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) costs of setting up and (b) annual running costs of the Immigration Services Tribunal and its staff; what provisions have been made to meet such costs; and what plans he has for designated professional bodies to contribute towards these costs. [81403]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Details of the costs of setting up and the annual running costs of the Immigration Services Tribunal and staff are contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which was published at the same time as the
  656
  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. [80748]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 15 April 1999]"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 to those, there are the following paid public appointments:

  Immigration and Asylum Bill. Schedule 6, paragraph 5(1) of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to prescribe by order fees for the registration or continued registration of persons on the register. There are no plans for designated professional bodies to contribute to these costs.

  Immigration Services Commission
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of fee he plans to be payable by those applying to be registered with the Immigration Services Commission under paragraph 5 of schedule 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill; by what criteria the level of the fee will be fixed; and on what basis each scale of fees will be determined. [81404]
  657
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  An estimate of level of fee to be paid by those applying to be registered with the Immigration Services Commissioner is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which was published at the same time as the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The criteria for fixing the fee level will be based on the full economic costs of providing the service to those who are required to register and will reflect the level of activity which the Commissioner and his staff devote to them.

  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) start-up costs and (b) annual running costs of the office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and staff; and what provisions have been made to meet such costs. [81402]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Details of the estimated start-up and annual costs of the office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and his staff are contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which was published at the same time as the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Powers for the Immigration Services Commissioner to require the payment of fees from designated professional bodies and for the Secretary of State to prescribe fees for registration or continued registration are contained in clause 65(7) and schedule 6, paragraph 5(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children from each local unitary authority in Wales were in young offenders' institutions in each of the past 10 years. [81333]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on where prisoners originate from is not available. The available statistics, shown in the table, relate to persons who were first committed to custody under sentence by a court from Wales and initially received into a Young Offender Institution in England and Wales.

  Receptions1 of 15–17 year olds into Young Offenders Institutions2 in England and Wales from a Welsh court by Welsh unitary authority, 1992–98

  Unitary authority and Custody type

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Blaenau Gwent

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  16

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Sentenced

  —

  7

  —

  5

  1

  —

  2

  Bridgend

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Sentenced

  2

  6

  17

  10

  4

  9

  16

  Caerphilly

  Sentenced

  3

  24

  22

  16

  13

  17

  21

  Cardiff

  Sentenced

  4

  20

  32

  28

  52

  69

  81

  Carmarthenshire

  Sentenced

  —

  2

  7

  6

  6

  11

  8

  Ceredigion

  Sentenced

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  4

  1

  Conway

  Sentenced

  —

  1

  5

  10

  5

  2

  2

  658

  Receptions1 of 15–17 year olds into Young Offenders Institutions2 in England and Wales from a Welsh court by Welsh unitary authority, 1992–98

  Unitary authority and Custody type

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Denbighshire

  Sentenced

  —

  4

  2

  3

  2

  2

  6

  Flintshire

  Sentenced

  1

  7

  3

  4

  8

  8

  11

  Gwynedd

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Sentenced

  3

  5

  6

  10

  7

  1

  5

  Isle of Anglessey

  Sentenced

  1

  1

  3

  1

  5

  2

  1

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Sentenced

  —

  9

  17

  21

  18

  20

  27

  Neath Port Talbot

  Sentenced

  —

  —

  4

  2

  1

  4

  6

  Newport

  Sentenced

  7

  28

  33

  25

  25

  23

  38

  Pembrokeshire

  Sentenced

  1

  8

  3

  1

  5

  3

  1

  Powys

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sentenced

  —

  5

  3

  3

  —

  —

  2

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Sentenced

  4

  15

  23

  28

  21

  21

  34

  Swansea

  Sentenced

  2

  23

  18

  20

  23

  16

  23

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Untried

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Convicted unsentenced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Sentenced

  2

  12

  12

  7

  8

  11

  22

  Wrexham

  Sentenced

  —

  2

  5

  2

  5

  11

  9

  1Total receptions cannot be calculated by adding together receptions in each category because there is double counting.

  2Includes receptions into closed young offender institutions, open young offender institutions and juvenile prisons.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) probation officers and (b) probation service officers retired, per service, in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [81558]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available information is as follows:

  Full-time established probation officers retiring each year by area

  Number of persons

  Probation area

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Avon

  2

  4

  3

  Bedfordshire

  4

  3

  1

  Berkshire

  2

  1

  8

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  1

  5

  Cheshire

  5

  6

  —

  Cornwall

  3

  —

  —

  659

  Full-time established probation officers retiring each year by area

  Number of persons

  Probation area

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Cumbria

  3

  2

  4

  Derbyshire

  7

  4

  2

  Devon

  6

  8

  3

  Dorset

  4

  9

  2

  Durham

  1

  2

  1

  Essex

  5

  5

  3

  Gloucestershire

  2

  3

  1

  Hampshire

  8

  9

  4

  Hereford and Worcester

  —

  4

  1

  Hertfordshire

  5

  3

  1

  Humberside

  4

  10

  5

  Kent

  11

  4

  5

  Lancashire

  9

  7

  3

  Leicestershire

  1

  2

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  1

  Greater Manchester

  6

  10

  4

  Merseyside

  14

  11

  8

  Norfolk

  3

  4

  3

  Northamptonshire

  2

  4

  2

  Northumbria

  6

  8

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  —

  —

  Oxford and Buckingham

  5

  8

  5

  Shropshire

  —

  2

  1

  Somerset

  2

  3

  —

  Staffordshire

  5

  11

  5

  Suffolk

  2

  2

  5

  Surrey

  3

  —

  1

  East Sussex

  1

  2

  —

  West Sussex

  1

  3

  1

  Teesside

  3

  1

  3

  Warwickshire

  4

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  24

  11

  16

  Wiltshire

  2

  6

  1

  North Yorkshire

  2

  8

  —

  South Yorkshire

  5

  12

  3

  West Yorkshire

  8

  8

  14

  Inner London

  16

  30

  17

  North East London

  2

  —

  4

  South East London

  1

  —

  2

  South West London

  1

  2

  1

  Middlesex

  11

  5

  3

  Dyfed

  —

  5

  4

  Gwent

  —

  2

  —

  North Wales

  3

  2;

  1

  Probation officers by age and grade1,2 England and Wales 1 November 1998

  Number of persons

  Grade

  Under 47

  47–48

  49–50

  51–55

  56–58

  Over 58

  All ages

  CPO

  10

  6

  5

  21

  8

  1

  51

  DCPO

  6

  3

  —

  5

  —

  —

  14

  ACPO

  81

  42

  31

  41

  9

  1

  204

  Area manager

  19

  3

  11

  6

  1

  —

  40

  SPO

  447

  137

  106

  193

  43

  36

  961

  PO

  3,113

  490

  426

  913

  216

  215

  5,373

  Temp PO

  72

  5

  5

  10

  8

  32

  132

  Non-probation officer staff by age and grade1,2 England and Wales 1 November 1998

  Number of persons

  Grade

  Under 47

  47–48

  49–50

  51–55

  56–58

  Over 58

  All ages

  Research officers

  61

  5

  7

  8

  4

  3

  88

  Probation services' officers

  1,051

  119

  168

  366

  141

  152

  1,996

  Clerical/secretarial

  1,472

  215

  230

  530

  180

  181

  2,807

  Administrative

  724

  82

  94

  205

  69

  37

  1,211

  Other

  838

  116

  113

  252

  100

  222

  1,641

  1Returns were not received from Durham, Hereford and Worcester and Staffordshire

  2Whole-time equivalents. Figures may not add to the total because of the rounding of part-time hours

  660

  Full-time established probation officers retiring each year by area

  Number of persons

  Probation area

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Powys

  —

  —

  3

  South Glamorgan

  1

  1

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  4

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  2

  1

  England and Wales

  221

  256

  170

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment takes place by probation officers in preparation for a home detention curfew; and if he will make a statement. [81561]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Probation Service contributes to the risk assessment conducted by the prison to establish the suitability of an offender to participate in the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme. Probation staff advise on the suitability of the prisoner and on the proposed curfew address. The Probation Service will consider whether the participation of the offender in the HDC scheme would be likely to present an unacceptable risk to the victim, others living at the proposed address or the public; whether there is a pattern of offending which indicates an unacceptable risk of re-offending during the HDC period; or whether there is a probability of failure to comply with the conditions of the curfew.

  Guidance to the Probation Service on HDC is set out in Probation Circulars 44/1998 and 82/1998, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average age of(a) probation officers and (b) probation service officers in each of the last three years. [81560]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office does not collect information on the ages of probation staff on a routine basis. However, a survey was held on 1 November 1998 to collect some limited information on the age structure at that time. The results for the 51 areas that responded are shown in the tables.
  661

  Fire Engines
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of fire engines(a) in each fire brigade and (b) in total, (i) in each of the last three years and (ii) on the last date for which figures are available. [81556]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of pumping appliances in each brigade in England and Wales on 1 January in each of the last three years was:

  Number of pumping appliances at stations on 1 January

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Avon

  39

  39

  39

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  29

  25

  25

  Buckinghamshire

  31

  31

  31

  Cambridgeshire

  37

  37

  33

  Cheshire

  46

  46

  45

  Cleveland

  23

  23

  23

  Cornwall

  67

  66

  66

  County Durham and Darlington

  28

  35

  35

  Cumbria

  54

  54

  54

  Derbyshire

  46

  45

  45

  Devon

  81

  81

  81

  Dorset

  61

  59

  59

  East Sussex

  38

  38

  38

  Essex

  75

  75

  75

  Gloucestershire

  33

  33

  35

  Greater Manchester

  73

  72

  72

  Hampshire

  95

  96

  96

  Hereford and Worcester

  44

  43

  43

  Hertfordshire

  43

  43

  43

  Humberside

  49

  49

  49

  Isle of Wight

  16

  16

  16

  Isles of Scilly

  4

  3

  4

  Kent

  87

  87

  87

  Lancashire

  65

  65

  66

  Leicestershire

  33

  33

  33

  Lincolnshire

  48

  48

  48

  London

  117

  177

  175

  Merseyside

  45

  43

  42

  Mid and West Wales

  83

  83

  83

  Norfolk

  52

  52

  52

  North Wales

  74

  74

  75

  North Yorkshire

  45

  45

  45

  Northamptonshire

  28

  28

  28

  Northumberland

  23

  25

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  36

  36

  36

  Oxfordshire

  36

  36

  36

  Royal Berkshire

  25

  25

  25

  Shropshire

  38

  38

  38

  Somerset

  42

  42

  42

  South Wales

  81

  87

  86

  South Yorkshire

  31

  32

  32

  Staffordshire

  48

  48

  48

  Suffolk

  47

  47

  47

  Surrey

  41

  41

  41

  Tyne and Wear

  34

  34

  34

  Warwickshire

  27

  27

  27

  West Midlands

  62

  62

  62

  West Sussex

  46

  46

  46

  West Yorkshire

  67

  68

  66

  Wiltshire

  34

  34

  36

  Total

  2,467

  2,472

  2,466

  Northern Ireland

  111

  111

  111

  Anti-terrorism Measures
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he 662
  has made of the appropriateness of anti-terrorism measures taken in public places; and if he will make a statement. [81438]

  Mr. Straw
  The joint Home Office/Northern Ireland Office consultation paper "Legislation Against Terrorism", which was issued on 17 December last year, examined the powers available under existing counter-terrorist legislation, including the measures available for use in public places. The use made of these measures in a particular area is the operational responsibility for the relevant Chief Officer of police.

  The consultation paper concluded that the current powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (1989) allowing the police in Great Britain to stop, question, search and arrest (including at ports) for terrorist purposes should for the most part be retained in the proposed permanent United Kingdom wide counter-terrorist legislation—though with some possible modifications. The paper also flagged up that, depending on the security situation at the time, new counter-terrorist legislation might also need to include additional temporary measures extending only to Northern Ireland. If this were the case, these additional measures would be phased out as soon as the security situation allowed.

  The consultation period for the "Legislation Against Terrorism" consultation paper ended on 16 March this year. We are analysing the responses. It is envisaged new counter-terrorist legislation will be introduced when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Rape
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the report on the study initiated by his Department into the processing of rape cases by the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [81436]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report is nearing completion and we hope to publish it in July 1999.

  Perjury
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions have been secured for the crime of perjury in the last 12 months. [80378]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database show that in England and Wales in 1997, (latest available) there were 238 defendants prosecuted for offences of perjury of whom 173 were convicted.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide additional storage space for files being dealt with by the Case Allocation Unit in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [80772]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We intend to transfer some non-active files from storage accommodation in Croydon to Acton. The space made available will meet all the foreseeable needs of the Case Allocation Unit. We expect the exercise to be completed by the end of May.
  663
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the throughput of files by the Case Allocation Unit planned for in the new organisation of immigration and asylum caseworking; and what is the throughput achieved according to the most recent figures available. [80773]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No firm projections of throughput of files by the Case Allocation Unit were made.

  During the week ending 9 April, the Case Allocation Unit received 2,865 files and despatched 1,338. This was an unusually low throughput due to the Easter holiday period.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average daily number of(a) callers trying to make a call to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, (b) calls made to that Directorate and (c) calls answered by the Telephone Caller Unit. [80780]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures for calls made during normal working hours in February and March are as follows:

  (a) Average number of callers per day: 5,240

  (b) Average number of calls per day: 47,046

  (c) Average number of calls answered per day: 1,690

  Note that many calls are repeat calls.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits he and his Ministers have made to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Croydon in the last year. [80781]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Secretary has visited the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) four times during the past year: on 14 September 1998, 18 February 1999 and 23 March 1999. He is planning to visit IND again shortly.

  I have visited IND eight times during the last year, on 11 June 1998, 14 September 1998 and on 11 February, 3 March, 11 March, 23 March, 31 March and 13 April 1999.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change in the level of productivity was planned for in the reorganisation of caseworking in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and what level of productivity is currently being achieved. [80777]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Private Finance Initiative contract with Siemens Business Services measures productivity as reduction in unit costs. The contract with Siemens assumes that unit costs reductions of more than 40 per cent. can be achieved when the new computer system is introduced to support the new modern ways of working. Delivery of the computer system has been delayed and the recent reorganisation of caseworking has been planned on a unit cost reduction of 32 per cent.

  A unit cost reduction of 15 per cent. was achieved prior to the recent disruption caused by the business change and modernisation initiative which was also part of the Public Finance Initiative project. Unit costs for the year ending February 1999 had reduced by between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. Unit costs for February 1999, in which output was badly affected by the disruption, were 28 per cent. higher than pre-contract levels.
  664
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the joint team established by the Home Office and Siemens Business Services on 17 March to report. [81467]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Project Team has reported its proposals for addressing the operational recovery of the Integrated Casework Directorate, which have been approved. The project team is continuing its work.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by how much the backlog in the asylum casework of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has grown(a) in the last year and (b) in the last three months for which figures are available. [80770]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The estimated number of applications for asylum awaiting an initial decision rose by 20,340 in the 12 months between March 1998 and February 1999 to 71,295. In the three months between December 1998 and February 1999, the figure rose by 10,405.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were planned for the Telephone Caller Unit of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate under the reorganisation of caseworking; and what is the average number of staff currently manning the Telephone Caller Unit. [80778]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau deals with both telephone and written inquiries from members of the public and with specialised inquiries from other Government departments and local authorities. The original complement of the unit, which assumed that the full information Technology system would be available, was 64. This was revised to 94 for the period of Team Based Caseworking. There are currently 83 staff in post. The average number of staff manning the telephones each day during March was 40.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he and Ministers in his Department have held with Siemens plc in connection with the reorganisation of caseworking in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the last year. [80779]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Secretary and I have had four meetings with Siemens plc during the last year.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what date it was planned that(a) the Public Caller Unit and (b) the Asylum Screening Unit would move from Lunar House to the Whitgift Centre; and when it is now planned that these moves will take place; [80774]

  (2) what factors underlay his decision to delay the move of the Public Caller Unit and the Asylum Screening Unit from Lunar House to the Whitgift Centre. [80775]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Public Caller Unit (PCU) commenced its planned phased move to the Whitgift Centre on Monday 1 February and completed the move on Friday 12 February. The Asylum Screening Unit (ASU) was originally scheduled to close in Lunar House on Friday 5 March and open in the Whitgift Centre on Monday 8 March.
  665
  During the initial transition phase to the Immigration Casework Directorate, the PCU experienced a large increase in the numbers of callers which continued after the PCU's move to the Whitgift Centre. In order to deal with these increased numbers additional temporary accommodation in Lunar House has been used by the PCU since Wednesday 10 March. Because of this, the planned move of the ASU to the Whitgift Centre was put on hold while the situation was reviewed.

  Following the review, it was agreed that additional improved queuing facilities for callers to the PCU and ASU should be provided. Additional staff for the PCU and ASU will also be provided in order to deal with the expected numbers of callers attending these units each day. It is now planned that the ASU will close in Lunar House on Friday 30 April and open in the Whitgift Centre on Tuesday 4 May. The PCU will close its additional accommodation in Lunar House on Friday 28 May.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of when the backlog of asylum casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be cleared. [80768]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are committed to reducing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate casework backlog to frictional levels by 2001. Our plans for dealing with Immigration and Nationality Directorate casework backlogs are set out int he Government's White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum."

  Former Yugoslav Nationals
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those persons, including dependants, who entered the United Kingdom under special arrangements for vulnerable individuals from former Yugoslavia(a) in September 1992 and (b) between November 1992 and August 1995 have subsequently (i) voluntarily left the UK, (ii) remained in the UK and (iii) applied for settlement in the UK. [80776]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the available statistics do not separately identify these persons from other nationals of the former Yugoslavia and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many representations he has received on the Government's non-ratification of the Optional Protocol of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; [80833]

  (2) when the Government intend to ratify the Optional Protocol of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and if he will make a statement. [80832]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are two Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 3 March 1999,Official Report, columns 756–57, that the United Kingdom would sign and ratify the Second Optional Protocol relating to the abolition of the death penalty. The Ambassador in New York accordingly signed the Protocol on 31 March and we shall ratify it shortly. The Home
  666
  Secretary also announced that the Government had concluded that the United Kingdom should not ratify the First Optional Protocol relating to the right of individual petition, but that we would look at this again once the Human Rights Act has been fully implemented.

  We have received one parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), nine parliamentary questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and a letter from the Director of Amnesty International relating to the decisions announced on 3 March. We have received no other correspondence from the public or Members of Parliament about the announcement.

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up an inquiry into the circumstances of(a) the recent departure of the former Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police Force with particular reference to the role of (i) senior management of the Police Force and (ii) the Cleveland Police Authority and (b) the former Deputy Chief Constable's subsequent appointment as Deputy Commissioner of the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands police force; and if he will make a statement. [81488]

  Mr. Boateng
  I do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by setting up a separate inquiry into the retirement of the former Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police. The former Deputy, Mr. Turnbull, exercised his right to retire from Cleveland Police and he retired on 7 March 1999. Mr. Turnbull's appointment as Deputy Commissioner of the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands Police Force is entirely a personal matter between him and that force.

  Immigration Act 1971
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time taken by him to determine an application by a person with limited leave under the Immigration Act 1971 to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for further leave in each of the last five years. [81462]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Excluding asylum-related cases, the average time taken to decide applications for further leave to remain to remain was:

  Year

  Days

  1994

  43

  1995

  45

  1996

  45

  1997

  46

  1998

  49

  This includes applications decided on the day in the Public Enquiry Offices.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were detained under the authority of an immigration officer under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the last five years; and how many of such persons were detained for(a) more than one week and (b) more than one month. [81464]
  667
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is only available at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many directions have been given under(a) paragraph 8(1)(a) and (b) and (b) paragraph 8(1)(c) of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the last five years; [81466]

  (2) how many cases he has referred to (a) an adjudicator and (b) an appeal tribunal under the provisions of section 21 of the Immigration Act 1971; and in how many such cases he has subsequently varied a decision in favour of an appellant. [81468]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) charged and (b) convicted of offences under section 26(1)(d) and (g) of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the last five years. [81471]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Data on the number of people charged by offence are not collected centrally.

  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database on the number of convictions by offence is given in the table.

  Number of persons convicted at all courts for offences1 under sections 26(1)(d) and 26(1)(g) of the Immigration Act 1971, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Offence

  Section 26(1)(d)

  Section(1)(g)

  1993

  3

  —

  1994

  8

  —

  1995

  7

  —

  1996

  5

  —

  1997

  3

  —

  1Principal immigration offence

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons appealed against the destination specified in directions for their removal following refusal of leave to enter under section 17(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the last five years; and how many of such appeals were allowed. [81473]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is that, in 1993, two appeals against the destination specified in directions for their removal following refusal of leave to enter under section 17(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 were heard, neither of which were allowed; in 1994, eight were heard, none of which were allowed and in 1996 two were heard with none allowed. No such appeals were heard in 1995 and 1996.

  I regret that information on how many appeals in this category were lodged is not centrally recorded and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records.

  Asylum Seekers (Vouchers)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the administrative and other costs of local authorities providing support for asylum seekers
  668
  by way of vouchers; and what assessment he has made of the average cost per voucher in relation to the nominal value of the voucher. [81472]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Although we have had discussions with some local authorities about the voucher schemes they are operating, these schemes have all been individually devised and are usually based around a branch of one of the major supermarket chains. They bear no comparison, therefore, with the commercially administered nationwide scheme which we have proposed and it would, therefore, have been an unmerited use of resources to have conducted detailed research into the administration and costs of these schemes. The Home Office voucher scheme will be subject to competitive tender, which will help to bear down on costs.

  Deportation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recommendations for deportation were made by courts in cases where an offender received(a) a community sentence, (b) a sentence of less than four years imprisonment and (c) four years or more imprisonment in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [81475]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Number of persons sentenced at all courts to (a) a community sentence and (b) immediate custody where the court also recommended deportation, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Main disposal Immediate custody by length of sentence:

  Community Sentence1

  Less than 4 years

  4 years or over

  1993

  —

  8

  187

  1994

  —

  9

  230

  1995

  1

  31

  237

  1996

  3

  14

  276

  1997

  —

  17

  297

  1Includes probation order, supervision order, community service order, attendance centre order, combination order and curfew order (since 1995)

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offenders were recommended for deportation by a court following convictions for(a) offences involving the possession or supply of illegal drugs or trafficking in drugs, (b) offences involving violence and (c) sexual offences in the most recent year for which figures are available; [81507]

  (2) how many offenders were recommended for deportation by (a) a magistrates court and (b) a Crown court in the most recent year for which figures are available. [81506]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Number of offenders recommended for deportation by the courts by type of court and type of offence, England and Wales, 1997

  Type of court/offence

  Number

  Court for all offences

  Magistrates court

  21

  Crown Court

  306

  669

  Number of offenders recommended for deportation by the courts by type of court and type of offence, England and Wales, 1997

  Type of court/offence

  Number

  Offences

  Offences in relation to the unlawful importation of a controlled drug

  182

  Offences in relation to the unlawful exportation of a controlled drug

  2

  Production or being concerned in production of a controlled drug

  1

  Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug

  7

  Having possession of a controlled drug

  3

  Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply

  14

  Violence against the person offences

  12

  Robbery

  2

  Sexual offences

  10

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders have been made against persons as belonging to the family of another under section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 where that other person had been recommended for deportation by a court in each of the last five years. [81474]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Telephone Kiosks (Prostitutes' Cards)
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish his consultation paper on dealing with advertising by prostitutes in public telephone kiosks. [81672]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office hopes to publish its consultation paper on new measures to tackle the problem of prostitutes' cards in telephone kiosks next month. The consultation paper will look at options for changing the law to enable those who put cards in telephone kiosks to be dealt with more effectively.

  Kosovan Refugees
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to use the former RAF base at Sopley to accommodate Kosovan refugees; and if he will make a statement. [81690]

  Mr. Straw
  None at this stage. The Government's priority remains to ensure that as far as possible, Kosovan refugees receive protection in the region so that they can return easily to their homes when it is safe for them to do so. However, I announced on 20 April that we have agreed to a request from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to accept a group of vulnerable refugees, mainly women and children, from Macedonia.

  Reception centres will be staffed by the Refugee Council and will provide temporary accommodation for refugees prior to their moving into more permanent accommodation. The Refugee Council is liaising closely with local authorities through the Local Government Association. They are currently looking at accommodation throughout the United Kingdom that could be used for reception centres.

  Variation of Leave Applications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has carried out regarding the rights of appeal of a person with limited leave applying for a variation of leave; and what representations he has received on this subject. [81465]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Consultation Paper on the Review of Appeals contained details of our proposals regarding rights of appeal for persons with limited leave applying for a variation of leave. We received no comments on these specific points in the responses to the Consultation Paper.

  Asylum Applications (Waterloo)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals claimed asylum at Waterloo Station in(a) 1997, (b) the first two months of 1998 and (c) 1998. [81463]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 1997, 2,235 applications for asylum were lodged at Waterloo Station. In 1998, 2,820 were made at the same port, of which 210 were made in January 1998 and 205 in February 1998.

  Immigration (Written Undertakings)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many written undertakings in respect of support for persons entering the UK were signed in 1997–98; [81469]

  (2) how many persons in respect of whom a written undertaking had been given by another accepting responsibility for their maintenance and accommodation applied for asylum in the UK in each of the last five years. [81470]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Kennedy Report
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress he is making towards the implementation of the Kennedy report. [80347]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I announced on 26 March that new arrangements along the lines recommended by Professor Kennedy are expected to be in operation by April 2001. We also plan to launch a pilot scheme or schemes by April 2000.

  CAP Reform
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact which reform of the CAP will have on the consumer. [80352]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  CAP reform should result in significant savings for consumers, of the order of £1 billion a year in aggregate when all the changes have
  671
  worked through. The average family of four will save £65 per year provided the likely reductions in market prices are passed to retail.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reform of the common agricultural policy in connection with farmers' incomes. [80368]

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the effect on farmers of the CAP reform package agreed at the Berlin summit. [80369]

  Mr. Morley
  The reform package will increase the market orientation of European agriculture and assist producers in their efforts to improve the competitive position of their businesses. In the short term, before these adjustments take place, there may be a negative impact on aggregate incomes of the order of 5 per cent. But in the particularly hard pressed beef sector, incomes have been fully protected.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the final outcome of the negotiations on reform of the common agricultural policy on the competitiveness of UK dairy farming. [80370]

  Mr. Morley
  The competitiveness of UK dairy farming will depend on the ability of producers to adjust to the new market situation. However, the agreement preserved the milk quota system and as long as this remains UK dairy farmers will be prevented from competing freely on world markets.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Agenda 2000 CAP Reform consultation exercise. [82167]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have today sent to interested organisations an information document entitled "CAP Reform Agreement" which summarises the outcome of the negotiations on the CAP reform package of Agenda 2000. It also includes an economic note on the likely effect of the reforms upon producers, taxpayers and consumers, and a summary of responses to the consultation exercise received to date. A further consultation will be undertaken on the implementation of the agreed CAP reform measures when detailed regulations and details of available Community funds are known.

  I have also made available today two consultation documents which stem from the agreement on CAP reform on which early preparatory action is necessary. The first, "Rural Development Regulation: Consultation on Implementation in England", seeks views on mechanisms for drawing up and operating seven year rural development plans. We will be asking for comments on who should prepare plans, on the geographic areas they should cover and on who should operate them.

  The second, "Supporting the Hill Farmer", seeks views on how we should support farming in the Less Favoured Areas in future. Since the Agenda 2000 reforms have changed the basis on which LFA support can be provided, we will be replacing our Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances scheme. We hope this consultation document will stimulate a wide debate on how we should design a new and better framework of support for our hill farmers.
  672
  I shall be placing copies of these documents in the Library of the House today.

  Pig Industry
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the state of the pig industry. [80353]

  Mr. Morley
  Market prices for pigs have improved since the turn of the year, but remain below costs of production. The Government will continue to do all they can to help, while recognising that pigs are traded in a relatively free market with limited opportunity for direct Government involvement.

  Fishing Industry Charges
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish tables on levels of charges faced by the fishing industry in the United Kingdom relative to the European fishing industries. [80354]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not have the necessary information about the level or nature of charges to the fishing industries of other Member States to enable us to make the comparisons requested.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will waive the proposed Food Standards Agency fee for food shops of less than 1,000 sq ft retail area. [80355]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are still considering the large response we have received on our proposals and will not reach any final decisions on the scope or operation of the levy until we have completed our assessment.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Food Standards Agency to be fully operational. [80358]

  Mr. Rooker
  The timetable depends on when the necessary legislation can be completed. We would hope the Agency to be established in the first half of next year.

  Krebs Trial Areas
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the survey in the Krebs trial areas in Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. [80357]

  Mr. Rooker
  Surveying has been completed. The area to be proactively culled will be randomly chosen very soon, and we shall be ready to cull after the end of the closed season.

  Food Safety (EU)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about food safety regulations in other parts of the EU. [80359]
  673
  Mr. Rooker
  Food safety is an area of EU competence. Most food law is harmonised across the EU and rules equivalent to those in place in the UK apply in other Member States. The Government see this as the best way to promote common food safety standards across the EU.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about Government health studies into genetically modified foods. [80361]

  Mr. Rooker
  All genetically modified (GM) foods are subject to a full and rigorous safety assessment before they are approved for sale. To underpin this process, the Department has a research programme with a current budget of £1 million per annum.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the environmental implications of genetically modified food. [80364]

  Mr. Rooker
  The environmental implications of genetically modified foods are considered in accordance with the provisions of the EC Directive for the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms (90/220/EEC).

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards are in place to ensure that consumers have adequate information on genetically modified foods. [80350]

  Mr. Rooker
  EC Regulation 1139/98, which came into force on 1 September 1998, requires all foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients produced from GM soya and maize to be labelled. This sets a precedent for the labelling of all future GM novel foods.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about scope for cross-pollination of genetically modified crops. [80362]

  Mr. Morley
  We believe the best way to avoid problems arising from cross-pollination is for extra care to be taken when these crops are grown on the farm. We are encouraging the industry to draw up voluntary guidelines including separation distances between GM and other crops. Non-compliance with the separation distances would lead to withholding of GM seed by the supplier.

  Lowland Farmers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the regulatory costs incurred by lowland farmers in England. [80363]

  Mr. Morley
  Costs incurred by individual farms will vary. Our aim is to keep regulatory costs to the minimum necessary to safeguard public, plant and animal health, the environment and the public funds.
  674

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last held discussions with representatives of the fishing industry. [80365]

  Mr. Morley
  I last met the major representative bodies in the fishing industry on 24 March, prior to the 30 March Fisheries Council in Brussels.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to combat TB in cattle. [80366]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 4 March 1999,Official Report, column 911.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received from dairy farms regarding the position of Milk Marque. [80367]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister receives regular representations from dairy farmers about a range of issues affecting dairy farming, including the position of Milk Marque.

  Meat and Bone Meal
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regulations governing the disposal of meat and bone meal. [80360]

  Mr. Rooker
  The disposal of waste MBM is controlled under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to ensure protection of the environment and human health. The Environment Agency is responsible for the enforcement of these controls and we are confident of their effectiveness.

  Bumblebees
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on horticulture of the decline in the numbers of bumblebees. [80617]

  Mr. Rooker
  No formal assessment has been made but I have no evidence to suggest that growers face any difficulties. As my hon. Friend will know, bumblebees are widely used for the pollination of protected crops, particularly glasshouse tomatoes.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Access to Justice Bill
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what equal opportunities impact assessment under the Government guidelines set out in Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment has been made of the Access to Justice Bill; if he will publish the assessment; and if he will make a statement. [81555]
  675
  Mr. Hoon
  The Government guidelines were issued only after the reform proposals had been settled and the White Paper published. To undertake a single impact assessment of the Access to Justice Bill as a whole would be impracticable because the Bill establishes broad frameworks within which detailed policies will be developed and implemented. We believe a more practicable way forward is to conduct assessments, where appropriate, as individual policies are developed and implemented. This will not only provide more focused assessments, but ensure they occur nearer in time to implementation.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for this year's appointments to Queen's Counsel(a) the average and (b) the highest number of unsuccessful previous applications made by applicants. [81481]

  Mr. Hoon
  The average number of unsuccessful previous applications made by applicants for Queen's Counsel in 1999 was 3.7. The highest number of unsuccessful previous applications by an applicant for Queen's Counsel in 1999 was 26.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department for this year's appointments to Queen's Counsel(a) what was the total number of applications, (b) what was the number of successful applicants and (c) of (a) and (b), how many were (i) women, (ii) from ethnic minorities, (iii) below the age of 38 years, (iv) over the age of 50 years and (v) solicitors. [81482]

  Mr. Hoon
  For this year's silk round the figures were as follows:

  Total number of applications: 553

  Number of successful applicants: 69

  Number of successful female silk applicants: 9

  Number of successful ethnic minority applicants: 5

  Number of successful applicants below the age of 38: 1

  Number of successful applicants above the age of 50: 3

  Number of successful solicitor applicants: 1.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for this year's appointments to Queen's Counsel(a) the highest figure and (b) the average figure given as the gross fee income (i) by successful applicants for Queen's Counsel, (ii) by unsuccessful applicants for Queen's Counsel and (iii) by all applicants for Queen's Counsel. [81483]

  Mr. Hoon
  The highest and average figure given as the gross fee income (i) by successful applicants for Queen's Counsel, (ii) by unsuccessful applicants for Queen's Counsel and (iii) by all applicants for Queen's counsel for this year's silk round were as follows:

  £

  Highest

  Average

  Successful

  550,000

  224,304

  Unsuccessful

  790,000

  165,897

  All

  790,000

  173,184

  Rights of Audience
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about future rights of audience in the higher courts of(a) members of the Crown Prosecution Service, (b) the proposed Community Legal Service and (c) the proposed Criminal Defence Service. [81571]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government will seek to amend the Access to Justice Bill to ensure that full rights of audience in the higher courts are exercisable by lawyers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Community Legal Service and the Criminal Defence Service, subject to individual lawyers satisfying the qualification requirements and rules of conduct of the appropriate authorised body. The Government will seek to reinstate clauses defeated in the House of Lords which provided rights of audience in the higher courts for employed advocates, and enabled the Legal Services Commission to provide criminal defence services through its own employees. They will also seek to amend Clause 33 to provide rights of audience to employees of bodies established and maintained by the Legal Services Commission.

  Duty Solicitor Schemes
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the value for money of duty solicitor schemes. [81568]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are constantly reviewing the cost effectiveness of provision of all criminal defence services to ensure that they provide the best possible value for money in terms of quality and price. In addition to assessing all claims from suppliers for duty solicitor services before payment, the level of standby payments is adjusted so that payments relate as closely as possible to the amount of business undertaken by the duty solicitor. From next year all criminal advice and assistance, including the duty solicitor schemes, will be provided under contract. New arrangements for providing duty solicitor services at early first hearings in the magistrates' courts are being tested in a pilot scheme. These arrangements have been monitored and are currently being evaluated.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the future of existing duty solicitor schemes; and what steps he intends to take to ensure the continuation of 24-hour cover for criminal defendants. [81567]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is our intention to continue to provide advice and assistance in broadly the categories for which it is currently available. These categories include advice and assistance provided by duty solicitors at police stations and magistrates' courts. Regulations will make express provision under the Access to Justice legislation.

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the hon. Members with whom, since 1 October 1998, the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Public Record
  677
  Office have corresponded concerning public access to the 1921, 1951 and 1961 census returns, indicating the contents of the correspondence. [81557]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 1 October 1998, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Public Record Office have corresponded with the following hon. Members concerning public access to the 1921, 1951 and 1961 census returns: the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). In each case the hon. Member was forwarding one or two letters from constituents. There was a total of eight letters from constituents.

  The constituents' letters asked when the current instruments prescribing 10 year extended retention periods for the census returns for 1921, 1951 and 1961 were next due for renewal. They also asked whether confirmation could be given that the census returns were not at present closed to public inspection for 100 years under the provisions of Lord Chancellor's Instrument 12 of 1966. The replies stated that the Lord Chancellor's Instruments were due for renewal as follows: 1921 census in 2006, 1961 census in 2001 and 1951 census in 2006. The replies also stated that these census returns were closed to public inspection for 100 years by Lord Chancellor's Instrument 12 of 1966.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department where the grounds for a 100-year closure period for decennial census returns are set out. [81562]

  Mr. Hoon
  The grounds for a 100-year closure period for decennial census returns are set out in the White Paper "Open Government" of 1993 (Cm 2290). This assigned a 100-year closure period for decennial census returns on the grounds that they consist of documents supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would constitute a breach of good faith.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how each of the nine measurements of performance for the new deal for young people is calculated. [81692]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The majority of the nine Core Performance Measures will be calculated using data from the Employment Service, Research and Development Division's New Deal Evaluation Database. We have issued already some initial figures for the first measure showing the numbers of participants who joined the New Deal in April 1998 moving into subsidised and unsubsidised jobs. Methods of calculation for the remaining Core Performance Measures are still being refined.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the final month of the intensified gateway of the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds will involve. [81694]
  678
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Proposals for more intensive activity in the final month of the Gateway are currently being considered. Action is likely to include a proactive review at the end of the third month of the Gateway, coaching, and an increased emphasis on referrals to jobs and places on the Options before the end of the Gateway period.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give details of the strategy being developed to improve the new deal for young people. [81691]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Continuous improvement in the New Deal is a key priority, allowing us to build upon the excellent progress that has been made so far in helping young people into jobs. To further improve the New Deal, a wide ranging strategy has been developed. Key elements include the Core Performance Measures which will monitor performance at a local level and achieve improvement through partnership action plans and the Innovation Fund—worth £5 million to back local innovative projects with scope to improve performance. The Government have indicated that they will particularly welcome bids against the Innovation Fund to intensify and enhance the New Deal Gateway and to improve the performance of New Deal in meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged young people.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 757, on Employment Service staff, how many of the young people taken on by the Employment Service from the New Deal are (a) subsidised and (b) unsubsidised; at what cost; and how many are involved in New Deal support functions. [81641]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A total of 342 people have been recruited into the Employment Service under the Government's New Deal programme between April 1998 when the programme commenced and 31 March 1999. Of these recruits the employer subsidy has been claimed for 286, the remaining 56 are unsubsidised. The total cost of the subsidy claimed for the period to 31 march 1999 is £322,875.

  The large majority of ES's recruits under New Deal are employed in local offices where they are employed in an administrative capacity. This is a multifunctioning role which will involve them in a range of Jobcentre activities. A proportion of their time may therefore be spent on administrative work supporting the ES's New Deal functions.

  LEA Funding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the funds received per pupil from all the initiatives launched and managed by his Department since May 1997, listing separately funds received from(a) standards fund initiatives and (b) other initiatives including capital funds. [80691]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The funding per pupil for all education initiatives announced by the Department of Education and Employment since May 1997 is listed for each local education authority in the following table. The figures for the Standards Fund do not include those Grants
  679
  for Education Support and Training announced prior to May 1997 but paid in the 1997–98 financial year. Grant maintained school pupils are included in the Standards Fund from April 1999. The Standards Fund figures include contributions from local education authorities. The per pupil figures in the table represent an average for each local education authority across all phases and types of school. The initiatives have not been disaggregated to take account of the particular types of school or pupil that they are aimed at. The amount per pupil for Standards Fund will depend on several local factors, such as the level of grant successfully bid for and accepted by a local education authority. Grants other than Standards Fund grants include nursery education grant paid in respect of children attending private, voluntary and independent providers of nursery education within the relevant local education authority area. However, these children are not included in the pupil count used to derive the per pupil figures in column (b).

  Funding per pupil for Department of Education and Employment initiatives announced since May 1997

  £

  Local education authority

  (a) Standards fund

  (b) Other including capital

  City of London

  1,310

  222

  Camden

  403

  209

  Greenwich

  291

  195

  Hackney

  446

  257

  Hammersmith

  322

  239

  Islington

  373

  191

  Kensington and Chelsea

  368

  236

  Lambeth

  418

  373

  Lewisham

  276

  289

  Southwark

  292

  218

  Tower Hamlets

  447

  202

  Wandsworth

  336

  267

  Westminster

  385

  196

  Barking

  278

  126

  Barnet

  201

  186

  Bexley

  159

  195

  Brent

  269

  277

  Bromley

  169

  307

  Croydon

  215

  311

  Ealing

  243

  174

  Enfield

  204

  175

  Haringey

  339

  203

  Harrow

  188

  166

  Havering

  150

  148

  Hillingdon

  204

  396

  Hounslow

  247

  204

  Kingston upon Thames

  193

  467

  Merton

  202

  322

  Newham

  228

  233

  Redbridge

  204

  178

  Richmond upon Thames

  170

  255

  Sutton

  166

  282

  Waltham Forest

  271

  181

  Birmingham

  238

  150

  Coventry

  261

  144

  Dudley

  266

  146

  Sandwell

  201

  214

  Solihull

  167

  260

  Walsall

  242

  228

  Wolverhampton

  294

  211

  Knowsley

  254

  187

  Liverpool

  203

  170

  St. Helens

  182

  200

  Sefton

  183

  134

  Wirral

  168

  168

  Bolton

  213

  232

  680

  Funding per pupil for Department of Education and Employment initiatives announced since May 1997

  £

  Local education authority

  (a) Standards fund

  (b) Other including capital

  Bury

  177

  266

  Manchester

  290

  179

  Oldham

  239

  247

  Rochdale

  233

  244

  Salford

  197

  240

  Stockport

  210

  229

  Tameside

  188

  258

  Trafford

  194

  281

  Wigan

  198

  215

  Barnsley

  219

  233

  Doncaster

  180

  152

  Rotherham

  199

  187

  Sheffield

  220

  222

  Bradford

  271

  237

  Calderdale

  227

  252

  Kirklees

  264

  196

  Leeds

  186

  177

  Wakefield

  209

  203

  Gateshead

  215

  122

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  241

  363

  North Tyneside

  235

  164

  South Tyneside

  224

  228

  Sunderland

  174

  124

  Isles of Scilly

  980

  284

  Bath and North East Somerset

  187

  221

  City of Bristol

  238

  137

  North Somerset

  184

  234

  South Gloucestershire

  192

  235

  Hartlepool

  210

  180

  Middlesbrough

  233

  241

  Redcar and Cleveland

  221

  171

  Stockton-on-Tees

  188

  177

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  198

  190

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  189

  200

  North East Lincolnshire

  195

  261

  North Lincolnshire

  195

  270

  North Yorkshire

  188

  166

  York

  224

  203

  Bedfordshire

  208

  217

  Luton

  266

  206

  Buckinghamshire

  228

  194

  Milton Keynes

  218

  229

  Derbyshire

  184

  236

  Derby

  251

  305

  Dorset

  182

  236

  Poole

  184

  264

  Bournemouth

  199

  338

  Durham

  232

  161

  Darlington

  225

  179

  East Sussex

  189

  211

  Brighton and Hove

  231

  230

  Hampshire

  161

  209

  Portsmouth

  201

  180

  Southampton

  194

  145

  Leicestershire

  181

  145

  Leicester

  244

  244

  Rutland

  319

  687

  Staffordshire

  186

  179

  Stoke-on-Trent

  224

  255

  Wiltshire

  207

  272

  Swindon

  202

  284

  Bracknell Forest1

  179

  165

  Windsor and Maidenhead1

  201

  116

  Newbury1

  223

  132

  Reading1

  268

  284

  Slough1

  309

  191

  Wokingham1

  175

  177

  Cambridgeshire

  198

  203

  681

  Funding per pupil for Department of Education and Employment initiatives announced since May 1997

  £

  Local education authority

  (a) Standards fund

  (b) Other including capital

  Peterborough2

  238

  151

  Cheshire

  170

  177

  Halton3

  193

  116

  Warrington3

  183

  163

  Devon

  202

  213

  Plymouth4

  193

  160

  Torbay4

  164

  153

  Essex

  189

  242

  Southend-on-Sea5

  162

  170

  Thurrock5

  219

  135

  Herefordshire6

  210

  213

  Worcestershire6

  185

  167

  Kent

  206

  195

  Medway Towns5

  192

  130

  Lancashire

  213

  195

  Blackburn with Darwen7

  321

  157

  Blackpool7

  197

  148

  Nottinghamshire

  159

  204

  Nottingham City8

  288

  111

  Shropshire

  205

  222

  Wrekin, The9

  279

  147

  Cornwall

  206

  102

  Cumbria

  235

  129

  Gloucestershire

  217

  292

  Hertfordshire

  192

  188

  Isle of Wight

  224

  214

  Lincolnshire

  204

  177

  Norfolk

  204

  196

  Northamptonshire

  210

  180

  Northumberland

  188

  213

  Oxfordshire

  216

  184

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Local recruitment measures

  Summer literacy schools

  Literacy at Key Stage 3

  Numeracy at Key Stage 3

  Summer numeracy schools

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Local education authority

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  1

  1

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Greenwich

  1

  1

  11

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  4

  Hackney

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Hammersmith

  11

  11

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Islington

  11

  11

  9

  7

  1

  1

  1

  0

  9

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Lambeth

  11

  11

  10

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  10

  2

  Lewisham

  11

  11

  9

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Southwark

  11

  11

  4

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Tower Hamlets

  11

  11

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Westminster

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Barking

  1

  1

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  1

  8

  4

  Barnet

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Bexley

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Brent

  0

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  6

  3

  Bromley

  1

  1

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Croydon

  1

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  9

  3

  Ealing

  1

  1

  13

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  6

  4

  Enfield

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Haringey

  1

  1

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Harrow

  11

  11

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Havering

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  1

  1

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  Hounslow

  1

  1

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  682

  Funding per pupil for Department of Education and Employment initiatives announced since May 1997

  £

  Local education authority

  (a) Standards fund

  (b) Other including capital

  Somerset

  217

  214

  Suffolk

  166

  159

  Surrey

  190

  207

  Warwickshire

  204

  180

  West Sussex

  177

  177

  Berkshire10

  3

  30

  1Part of Berkshire until 31 March 1998

  2Part of Cambridgeshire until 31 March 1998

  3Part of Cheshire until 31 March 1998

  4Part of Devon until 31 March 1998

  5Part of Essex until 31 March 1998

  6Within Hereford and Worcester until 31 March 1998

  7Part of Lancashire until 31 March 1998

  8Part of Nottinghamshire until 31 March 1998

  9Part of Shropshire until 31 March 1998

  10Ceased to be a Local Authority on 1 April 1998

  LEAs (Competitive Bidding)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many bids(a) have been received and (b) were successful in each local education authority for each competitive bidding process launched and managed by his Department since November 1998. [80692]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Details of the number of competitive bids submitted by local education authorities since November 1998, along with the number that were successful, is given in the following table.
  683

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Local recruitment measures

  Summer literacy schools

  Literacy at Key Stage 3

  Numeracy at Key Stage 3

  Summer numeracy schools

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Merton

  1

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Newham

  1

  1

  14

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  5

  3

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  0

  6

  6

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Sutton

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Waltham Forest

  11

  11

  12

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  3

  Birmingham

  1

  1

  20

  11

  1

  1

  1

  1

  16

  5

  Coventry

  0

  0

  7

  7

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Dudley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Sandwell

  1

  0

  7

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  4

  Solihull

  1

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  11

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  11

  3

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  St. Helens

  0

  0

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  Sefton

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  Wirral

  0

  0

  4

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Bolton

  0

  0

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Bury

  0

  0

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  1

  1

  15

  11

  1

  1

  1

  0

  5

  1

  Oldham

  0

  0

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  2

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Salford

  0

  0

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Stockport

  0

  0

  14

  9

  1

  1

  1

  0

  5

  3

  Tameside

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Trafford

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Wigan

  0

  0

  11

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  8

  2

  Barnsley

  0

  0

  14

  9

  0

  0

  1

  0

  14

  5

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  3

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  1

  1

  10

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  5

  4

  Bradford

  1

  1

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  Calderdale

  1

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  3

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  13

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  2

  Leeds

  0

  0

  16

  11

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  18

  11

  1

  1

  0

  0

  18

  2

  Gateshead

  0

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  9

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North Tyneside

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  4

  4

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Sunderland

  0

  0

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  3

  Isles of Scilly

  11

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  City of Bristol

  1

  1

  12

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  7

  3

  North Somerset

  0

  0

  8

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  7

  4

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Middlesbrough

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  3

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  2

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  0

  0

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  3

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  0

  4

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  2

  North Yorkshire

  1

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  York

  0

  0

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Bedfordshire

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Luton

  1

  1

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  11

  11

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Milton Keynes

  1

  1

  7

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  12

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  6

  2

  Derby

  1

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  Dorset

  1

  1

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Poole

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  684 685

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Local recruitment measures

  Summer literacy schools

  Literacy at Key Stage 3

  Numeracy at Key Stage 3

  Summer numeracy schools

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  7

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  7

  2

  Durham

  0

  0

  10

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  5

  4

  Darlington

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  East Sussex

  1

  1

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  10

  8

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  15

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  9

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Southampton

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Leicester

  1

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  Rutland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Staffordshire

  1

  0

  15

  11

  0

  0

  1

  0

  9

  2

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1

  1

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  8

  2

  Wiltshire

  11

  11

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Swindon

  11

  11

  7

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  Bracknell Forest

  11

  11

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  11

  11

  3

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Newbury

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Reading

  1

  1

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Slough

  1

  1

  7

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  Wokingham

  11

  11

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  20

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  2

  Peterborough

  1

  1

  6

  6

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  10

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  3

  Halton

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  2

  Warrington

  0

  0

  7

  7

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Devon

  11

  11

  13

  9

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  Plymouth

  11

  1

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  2

  Southend-on-Sea

  1

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Thurrock

  11

  11

  9

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  1

  Kent

  1

  1

  29

  12

  0

  0

  1

  1

  22

  2

  Medway Towns

  1

  1

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  19

  11

  1

  1

  1

  1

  9

  3

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1

  1

  9

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  9

  4

  Blackpool

  0

  0

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham City

  1

  1

  14

  9

  1

  1

  0

  0

  3

  3

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  The Wrekin

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Cornwall

  11

  11

  10

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  3

  Cumbria

  0

  0

  6

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  Gloucestershire

  1l

  1l

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  14

  9

  1

  1

  1

  1

  10

  5

  Isle of Wight

  11

  11

  5

  5

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  20

  11

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  8

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  4

  Northamptonshire

  0

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  3

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  4

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Oxfordshire

  11

  11

  5

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Somerset

  11

  11

  9

  9

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Surrey

  1

  1

  16

  11

  0

  0

  1

  0

  6

  4

  Warwickshire

  1

  0

  10

  8

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  6

  6

  1

  1

  1

  0

  3

  3

  Total

  79

  70

  1,096

  900

  26

  26

  94

  16

  568

  303

  686 687

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Family numeracy

  special educational needs

  Work related learning

  Social inclusion—Pupil support

  National grid for learning

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Local education authority

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Camden

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Greenwich

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hackney

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hammersmith

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Islington

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lambeth

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lewisham

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Southwark

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wandsworth

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Westminster

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Barking

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Barnet

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bexley

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Brent

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bromley

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Croydon

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Ealing

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Enfield

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Haringey

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Harrow

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Havering

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hounslow

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Merton

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Newham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Redbridge

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sutton

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Coventry

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dudley

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Solihull

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Knowsley

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  St.Helens

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sefton

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wirral

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bolton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bury

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Manchester

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Oldham

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Salford

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Stockport

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Temeside

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Trafford

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wigan

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Barnsley

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Doncaster

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Rotherham

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sheffield

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bradford

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Calderdale

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kirklees

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Leeds

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Gateshead

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Tyneside

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South Tyneside

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sunderland

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  688 689

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Family numeracy

  special educational needs

  Work related learning

  Social inclusion—Pupil support

  National grid for learning

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  City of Bristol

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Somerset

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South Gloucestershire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hartlepool

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Middlesbrough

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  York

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bedfordshire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Luton

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  I

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Milton Keynes

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Derby

  1

  0

  I

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Dorset

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Poole

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Bournemouth

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Durham

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  I

  1

  Darlington

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Sussex

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Brighton and Hove

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hampshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Portsmouth

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Southampton

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Leicester

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Rutland

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wiltshire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Swindon

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bracknell Forest

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Newbury

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Reading

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Slough

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wokingham

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Peterborough

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cheshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Halton

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  I

  1

  1

  1

  Warrington

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Devon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Plymouth

  1

  0

  I

  0

  1

  0

  1

  I

  1

  1

  Southend-on-Sea

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Thurrock

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Herefordshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  I

  1

  1

  Worcestershire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Kent

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Medway Towns

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  I

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Blackpool

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Nottingham City

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shropshire

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  The Wrekin

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cornwall

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Cumbria

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Lincolnshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Oxfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Somerset

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  690 691

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Family numeracy

  special educational needs

  Work related learning

  Social inclusion—Pupil support

  National grid for learning

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Suffolk

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Surrey

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  130

  51

  148

  62

  148

  62

  148

  134

  150

  150

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Education of travellers and displaced persons

  Expanding local authority music services

  New Deal for schools Phase 3

  Total

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Local education authority

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Camden

  1

  1

  1

  1

  36

  4

  52

  16

  Greenwich

  1

  1

  1

  1

  28

  7

  56

  26

  Hackney

  1

  1

  1

  1

  43

  6

  54

  16

  Hammersmith

  1

  1

  1

  1

  34

  2

  44

  9

  Islington

  0

  0

  1

  1

  27

  4

  54

  19

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  1

  1

  1

  13

  0

  25

  8

  Lambeth

  1

  1

  1

  1

  41

  10

  70

  18

  Lewisham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  18

  2

  37

  18

  Southwark

  1

  1

  1

  1

  38

  3

  54

  16

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  1

  1

  1

  18

  5

  36

  20

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  1

  17

  10

  Westminster

  0

  0

  1

  1

  39

  4

  49

  12

  Barking

  1

  1

  1

  1

  101

  3

  127

  24

  Barnet

  1

  1

  1

  1

  17

  1

  31

  11

  Bexley

  1

  1

  1

  0

  63

  8

  76

  16

  Brent

  1

  1

  1

  1

  28

  3

  51

  21

  Bromley

  1

  1

  0

  0

  35

  15

  46

  23

  Croydon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  49

  7

  77

  23

  Ealing

  1

  1

  1

  1

  17

  3

  46

  24

  Enfield

  1

  1

  1

  1

  28

  3

  40

  12

  Haringey

  1

  1

  1

  0

  53

  4

  73

  17

  Harrow

  1

  1

  1

  0

  25

  5

  38

  14

  Havering

  1

  1

  1

  1

  66

  6

  75

  12

  Hillingdon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  35

  5

  52

  19

  Hounslow

  1

  1

  1

  0

  139

  12

  155

  24

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  1

  1

  1

  56

  1

  67

  11

  Merton

  0

  0

  1

  1

  15

  2

  28

  10

  Newham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  28

  3

  57

  23

  Redbridge

  1

  1

  1

  1

  43

  11

  53

  16

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  1

  1

  1

  18

  11

  35

  26

  Sutton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  68

  15

  78

  21

  Waltham Forest

  1

  1

  1

  1

  12

  13

  40

  30

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  1

  1

  24

  18

  69

  43

  Coventry

  0

  0

  1

  1

  54

  23

  71

  37

  Dudley

  0

  0

  1

  1

  33

  1

  40

  3

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  1

  0

  60

  13

  79

  26

  Solihull

  1

  1

  1

  1

  115

  52

  129

  62

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  1

  1

  9

  3

  38

  17

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  1

  0

  14

  3

  32

  15

  St. Helens

  1

  1

  0

  0

  5

  1

  23

  16

  Sefton

  1

  1

  1

  0

  186

  1

  201

  11

  Wirral

  0

  0

  1

  0

  34

  7

  49

  18

  Bolton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  18

  2

  36

  19

  Bury

  1

  1

  1

  1

  43

  19

  58

  32

  Manchester

  1

  1

  1

  0

  35

  5

  65

  25

  Oldham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  36

  1

  58

  17

  Rochdale

  1

  1

  1

  1

  15

  5

  27

  15

  Salford

  1

  1

  1

  0

  27

  5

  43

  17

  Stockport

  0

  0

  1

  1

  20

  7

  47

  24

  Tameside

  1

  1

  1

  0

  21

  4

  33

  15

  Trafford

  1

  1

  0

  0

  22

  4

  32

  12

  Wigan

  1

  1

  1

  0

  16

  3

  43

  18

  Barnsley

  1

  1

  1

  1

  22

  3

  58

  23

  Doncaster

  1

  1

  1

  0

  26

  6

  48

  22

  Rotherham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  18

  0

  30

  10

  692 693

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Education of travellers and displaced persons

  Expanding local authority music services

  New Deal for schools Phase 3

  Total

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Sheffield

  1

  1

  0

  0

  16

  3

  40

  23

  Bradford

  1

  1

  0

  0

  37

  1

  58

  15

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  1

  33

  12

  Kirklees

  1

  1

  1

  0

  40

  16

  65

  28

  Leeds

  1

  1

  1

  0

  37

  14

  65

  34

  Wakefield

  1

  1

  1

  0

  17

  3

  61

  20

  Gateshead

  1

  1

  0

  0

  20

  8

  40

  24

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1

  1

  0

  0

  9

  1

  24

  12

  North Tyneside

  1

  1

  1

  1

  63

  18

  73

  27

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  4

  31

  13

  Sunderland

  1

  1

  1

  1

  32

  0

  52

  15

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  6

  2

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  0

  1

  0

  41

  8

  54

  16

  City of Bristol

  0

  0

  1

  0

  46

  10

  74

  16

  North Somerset

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  2

  28

  19

  South Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  17

  3

  31

  16

  Hartlepool

  0

  0

  1

  1

  11

  1

  22

  12

  Middlesbrough

  1

  1

  1

  1

  18

  5

  36

  17

  Redcar and Cleveland

  0

  0

  1

  1

  22

  1

  34

  11

  Stockton-on-Tees

  0

  0

  1

  1

  29

  10

  46

  21

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  0

  0

  0

  0

  32

  6

  50

  21

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  46

  16

  63

  29

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  58

  2

  73

  11

  York

  0

  0

  1

  0

  22

  2

  35

  13

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  9

  3

  23

  15

  Luton

  1

  1

  0

  0

  30

  3

  47

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  134

  3

  145

  12

  Milton Keynes

  1

  1

  1

  1

  18

  5

  36

  21

  Derbyshire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  16

  8

  43

  24

  Derby

  1

  1

  1

  1

  39

  3

  55

  14

  Dorset

  1

  1

  1

  1

  29

  3

  50

  18

  Poole

  1

  1

  1

  1

  11

  2

  23

  11

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  1

  1

  19

  2

  40

  16

  Durham

  1

  1

  1

  0

  28

  25

  52

  42

  Darlington

  0

  0

  1

  0

  32

  7

  42

  12

  East Sussex

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  25

  17

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  0

  1

  0

  27

  7

  47

  23

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  126

  17

  149

  34

  Portsmouth

  0

  0

  1

  1

  75

  1

  93

  17

  Southampton

  0

  0

  1

  1

  59

  2

  67

  7

  Leicestershire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  90

  11

  104

  20

  Leicester

  0

  0

  1

  0

  33

  5

  49

  14

  Rutland

  0

  0

  1

  1

  36

  0

  41

  3

  Staffordshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  130

  41

  162

  56

  Stoke-on-Trent

  0

  0

  1

  0

  11

  3

  37

  18

  Wiltshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  41

  5

  61

  21

  Swindon

  0

  0

  1

  1

  11

  2

  29

  17

  Bracknell Forest

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  2

  22

  11

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  3

  30

  8

  Newbury

  0

  0

  1

  0

  16

  3

  28

  12

  Reading

  0

  0

  1

  0

  14

  4

  29

  17

  Slough

  0

  0

  1

  1

  30

  4

  49

  19

  Wokingham

  1

  1

  1

  0

  41

  17

  53

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  92

  2

  128

  23

  Peterborough

  0

  0

  1

  0

  77

  5

  94

  20

  Cheshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  37

  8

  64

  23

  Halton

  0

  0

  1

  0

  21

  1

  37

  10

  Warrington

  0

  0

  1

  1

  128

  23

  145

  36

  Devon

  1

  1

  1

  1

  39

  18

  64

  37

  Plymouth

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  4

  35

  17

  Southend-on-Sea

  0

  0

  1

  1

  46

  16

  58

  24

  Thurrock

  1

  1

  1

  1

  21

  6

  41

  23

  Herefordshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  53

  3

  64

  13

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  1

  1

  80

  11

  97

  20

  Kent

  1

  1

  1

  1

  49

  11

  109

  21

  Medway Towns

  0

  0

  1

  0

  34

  10

  54

  26

  Lancashire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  36

  11

  74

  33

  Blackburn with Darwen

  0

  0

  1

  1

  35

  1

  61

  20

  Blackpool

  0

  0

  0

  0

  200

  11

  212

  10

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  36

  10

  53

  23

  Nottingham City

  0

  0

  1

  1

  68

  4

  93

  24

  694 695

  Competitive bids received from local education authorities since November 1998

  Education of travellers and displaced persons

  Expanding local authority music services

  New Deal for schools Phase 3

  Total

  DfEE Initiative

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  52

  9

  64

  18

  The Wrekin

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31

  1

  42

  10

  Cornwall

  1

  1

  1

  1

  54

  23

  81

  39

  Cumbria

  1

  1

  1

  1

  29

  14

  46

  28

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  44

  3

  64

  21

  Hertfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  1

  46

  5

  80

  26

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  1

  0

  12

  4

  25

  12

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  0

  0

  45

  15

  73

  30

  Norfolk

  1

  1

  1

  1

  46

  4

  69

  22

  Northamptonshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  77

  18

  100

  33

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  0

  0

  45

  13

  58

  24

  Oxfordshire

  1

  1

  1

  0

  55

  14

  71

  26

  Somerset

  1

  1

  1

  0

  24

  11

  44

  28

  Suffolk

  1

  1

  1

  1

  24

  19

  34

  25

  Surrey

  1

  1

  1

  0

  82

  28

  113

  47

  Warwickshire

  0

  0

  1

  0

  16

  11

  38

  15

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  1

  0

  41

  19

  60

  36

  Total

  91

  91

  127

  80

  5,909

  1,053

  8,714

  2,998

  1LEA bids submitted as part of a consortium

  Note:

  Column A = Number of bids received, Column B=Number of successful bids

  Final number of approved bids to be determined following further discussions with the LEA

  Classroom Tuition
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the average number of hours a Year 7 pupil in a local education authority school spent receiving tuition in the classroom in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1988–89 and (c) 1998–99. [81715]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I am unable to provide my hon. Friend with an estimate of the average number of hours a Year 7 pupil spent receiving tuition in the classroom as the data is not available for the years specified. However, Circular 7/90 recommends minimum levels of time that pupils are taught in schools which for Years 7 to 11 pupils is 24 hours per week.

WALES

  Mental Health Services
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to Welsh health authorities regarding mental health treatment for members of (i) black and (ii) other ethnic minority communities. [80196]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  When issuing advice to the health sector on mental health issues the Welsh Office is providing either a legally binding direction; action that requires a specific response; information or guidance or examples of good practice. These categories are equally applicable across mental health service users irrespective of cultural or ethnic background.

  We are aware of the issues around mental health and ethnicity and shall consider the needs of ethnic minority patients when drawing up our plans for future Strategies on both child and adolescent and adult mental health services.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  696

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the consequences of CAP reform in Wales for the(a) beef, (b) sheepmeat and (c) dairy sectors. [80847]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Department has been undertaking research into the potential effects of the Agenda 2000 reforms. It appears, from the preliminary analysis, that the beef sector should benefit, as increased subsidies and decreased feed costs (a consequence of the reform of the cereals regime) are expected to outweigh price reductions.

  There are no specific reforms for the sheepmeat sector. However, the sector will benefit from the decreased price of feedstuffs. On the other hand, reductions in the price of beef will increase competitive pressures and are expected to lead to a cut in market prices for sheepmeat. This will be offset by increased Sheep Annual Premium payments. It is unclear at the moment what the net effect will be.

  Dairy sector reforms will not be implemented until 2005.

  These estimates are taken from work in progress and do not make allowances for restructuring or for movements in exchange rates.

  Atypical Anti-psychotic Drugs
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the efficacy of new atypical anti-psychotic drugs in the treatment of mental health. [81382]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  All products that have been licensed will have had their efficacy assessed by the Medicines Control Agency.
  697
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet mental health groups to discuss the prescribing of atypical anti-psychotic drugs for mental health patients. [81381]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I am always willing to consider specific requests for meetings with mental health groups.

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

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has given to health authorities regarding the prescribing of atypical anti-psychotic drugs for mental health patients. [81380]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  WHIN No. (98)13 issued on 1 December 1998 and WHN No. (99)1 issued on 7 January 1999 both related to the withdrawal of the product Serdolect (sertindole). I shall place a copy of these notices in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Capping
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to use his capping powers for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [82136]

  Mr. Michael
  In line with our Manifesto commitment to abolish crude and universal capping, I decided not to announce capping limits in advance for 1999–2000. This left councils and police authorities in Wales to make up their own minds on their budgets taking account of their local circumstances, including the impact on council tax, and the views of local people.

  The average Band D council tax bill in Wales has increased by 8.5 per cent. or £47 to £602. Overall, the reaction to the 1999–2000 local government revenue settlement has been measured and responsible. I have therefore decided not to cap any authorities this year.

  The National Assembly for Wales will inherit my present capping powers in respect of 2000–01 and later years, although it is planned to replace these powers with the new reserve powers to limit council tax and precepts which are contained in the Local Government Bill.
  698
  Authorities in Wales should bear in mind that the Assembly will be able to look back at increases in budgets since 1998–99 in deciding whether and how to use the new reserve powers in future years.

  Cadw
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has set for Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments Executive Agency. [82137]

  Mr. Michael
  Cadw has been set the following key targets for 1999–2000:

  1. To complete 90 per cent. of the approved conservation maintenance programme.

  2. To complete 80 resurveys.

  3. To resolve 75 per cent. of ad hoc listing cases within 17 weeks.

  4. To complete 120 scheduling actions, of which at least 90 per cent. involve additional protection.

  5. To resolve 80 per cent. of listed building consent cases within 4 weeks and 90 per cent. of cases in 7 weeks.

  6. To resolve 75 per cent. of scheduled monument consent cases within 13 weeks and 90 per cent. of cases within 17 weeks.

  7. To resolve 80 per cent. of historic buildings grant applications in 18 weeks.

  8. To resolve 80 per cent. of ancient monument grant applications within 6 weeks.

  9. To pay 90 per cent. of properly presented claims for historic buildings and ancient monuments grants within 5 weeks of receipt.

  10. To achieve a market share of 63 per cent. of the number of visitors to the top twenty heritage sites in Wales.

  11. To reduce direct net cost per visitor at Cadw's sites to an average of 25 pence.

  12. To operate within allocated programme and running cost budgets.

  13. To achieve efficiency gains of at least 2 per cent.

  Full details of Cadw's performance against targets for 1999–2000 will be published in the Agency's Annual Report.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans(a) he and (b) Welsh Office Ministers have to attend (i) meetings and (ii) functions with lobbyists and public relations organisations between 6 and 20 May. [81734]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

Fissile Materials: Proposed Treaty
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to encourage the negotiation of a fissile material cut-off convention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have had useful discussions in recent months on the substantive issues involved in a fissile material cut-off treaty with a range of interested countries. We are frustrated that actual negotiations on such a treaty have yet to begin at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Our Ambassador there has been working hard to find a way of breaking the deadlock in the Conference on Disarmament over this year's programme of work.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I share my noble friend's disappointment that her enthusiasm has not met with greater encouragement. However, the Government announced in their strategic defence review that they proposed to place surplus stocks of weapon-grade plutonium under international control and have therefore declared their confidence in an international authority. Despite the set-backs, does the Minister foresee a time when all weapons of mass destruction will be placed under the control of an international authority? May we then look forward to a more law-abiding and safer world for our grandchildren?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the Government have set a good example. We now publish information about all United Kingdom stocks of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. We have announced that all fissile materials surplus to defence requirements will he placed under EURATOM safeguards and made liable to inspection by the IAEA.
There are a number of priorities. One is the fissile material cut-off treaty, as we discussed. However, we also wish to see entering into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which 152 countries have so far signed, the ratification of Start 2 and negotiations on Start 3, which is of great importance.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister say how far matters have proceeded in Russia, particularly in relation to factories and research centres producing nuclear material, following the visit by the
1226
Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago during which he raised the matter in Murmansk, where he was concerned about the deterioration of nuclear submarines?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that the Foreign Secretary has raised these issues. The Government have also done everything they can to encourage the Russian Duma to ratify Start 2. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness, with all the sensitivity I can on this subject, that at the moment the Duma is probably not entirely in a receptive frame of mind on some of these issues.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what steps have the Government taken to build on the progress made by the previous administration, which announced the UK's cessation of the production of fissile material for explosive purposes at the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference in April 1995?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I had hoped that I had answered that specific point when dealing with the supplementary question asked by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. It is true that in 1995 the then Foreign Secretary announced that we had ceased production of fissile material. It is important to note the additional steps taken under the current administration to publish information on UK stocks of both highly enriched uranium and plutonium, to put fissile material surpluses under the EURATOM safeguards, and to enable the IAEA to carry out inspections. Therefore, we have built on the useful start made by the previous Foreign Secretary in 1995 in a way in which I hope the noble Baroness will find constructive.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the British arsenal, do we have a surplus of fissile material, both enriched uranium and plutonium, and would not the best method of disposal be to recycle it through our civil nuclear reactors?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have indicated, there is a surplus which, as regards our defence requirements, will be placed under EURATOM. We will also ensure that the IAEA has access for inspection purposes. Yes, there is a surplus, but it has been placed under the safeguards that I have indicated.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House which, in the opinion of the Government, of the following three groups of countries are most to blame for the delay in setting up a regime? First, is it those which hold nuclear weapons legally under international law, including ourselves? Secondly, is it those which hold them illegally? Thirdly, is it those which do not hold them at all but look as though they would like to?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I really do not believe that it is sensible to apportion blame, as my noble friend urges me to. Her Majesty's

1227
Government have built on the very useful start that was made in 1995 in relation fissile material. They have signed up to the CTBT and are urging all other countries to do so. Moreover, we are also urging other countries which have not yet become signatories to the conventions on biological and chemical weapons to do so. It is better for those of us who want to see the elimination of those weapons of mass destruction to concentrate on the positive elements which we can take forward and not to look too much at who we can blame most.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the nuclear fleet at Murmansk, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, represents a large and increasing threat of a major environmental disaster? Is it not possible to move to reduce that danger without waiting for everybody to sign up to that convention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when we discussed this issue before, I was able to tell your Lordships that it is a matter of very great concern to my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. We are looking at ways in which we can try to help the Russians deal with what we all recognise may be a very great environmental threat.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I recognise that the Duma finds this a delicate moment to pass the Start treaty, but it has succeeded in finding delicate moments for the past four years at least. The Americans, the European Union and ourselves have given money to the Russians over the past six years, as far as I remember, to reduce those dangers; for example, the nuclear submarines. Have any accounts ever been put forward in respect of that money? Have we received any explanation for the fact that it does not seem to have worked?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about accounting for the money which has been spent. However, we are considering positive measures to try to help the Russians with what we all perceive to be a possible environmental danger which would affect not only that country but other countries too. Of course, there are delicate moments but some really are more delicate than others.

Burma: EU Common Position
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made with their European Union partners in strengthening the European Union Common Position on Burma.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, EU Foreign Ministers will discuss renewal of the EU Common Position at the General Affairs Council on 26th April. The Common Position was strengthened
1228
when it was last renewed, in October 1998. We have regular contacts with EU partners about possible changes to the Common Position but there has been no recent consensus on further measures.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that refreshingly honest reply. Will she join me in paying tribute to Aung San Siu Kyi, the legitimate Burmese leader, who has shown remarkable and exceptional courage in the past few months, especially following her bereavement? Will the Minister also join Aung San Siu Kyi in saying that the position in Burma has deteriorated continually in the past few months: 120 members of parliament are in detention. Will she agree also with Aung San Siu Kyi that concrete measures and more urgent attention should be given to that by both the European Union and the United Nations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl. There has been no improvement in the political or human rights situation in Burma. The SPDC continues to detain democracy activists and to force them to resign from their political parties. In January about 200 students and about 50 LLD youth members were sentenced to up to 52 years. Ethnic minorities continue to cross into Thailand. There are now about 115,000 people in the refugee camps. I am sure that the whole House will agree with what the noble Earl said about Aung San Siu Kyi's courage and would wish to send her our great sympathy on the death of Michael Aris. I am sure we all agree that both she and Michael Aris were quite extraordinarily brave in the stand that they took.
I am happy to say that our ambassador has been in close touch with Aung San Siu Kyi in recent months over the tragic humanitarian case of Dr. Aris. At one point, he was seeing her almost every day.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, since there has been no sign of any change of heart on the part of the Burmese regime, and since the people of that country continue to suffer under repression, might it not just be possible that a change of policy would yield better results and that some form of dialogue and international contact with the regime would lead to a more favourable solution, rather than a continuing policy of sanction and ostracism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we must bear in mind what the elected leader of Burma, Aung San Siu Kyi, urges upon other countries which favour democracy. The course of action suggested by the noble Lord to your Lordships is not the course of action chosen by the elected leader of that country.
With our partners we are working hard on a draft resolution on Burma for adoption at the session of the UN Convention on Human Rights. We are taking a number of different actions, such as supporting, as I have indicated, the EU Common Position and looking

1229
at ways of tackling the issue through the ILO. However, it behoves us to listen to what is said to us about the position in Burma by its elected leader.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that countries in the region that hold no brief for the military rulers in Burma, are extremely sensitive about interventions by former colonial powers, and that ASEAN has a much greater opportunity of producing some sort of bridge? Does she also agree that while no one argues against the bravery of Aung San Siu Kyi, many of her former supporters believe that she is a stumbling block to any sort of dialogue?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, while I am sure that we all wish to see eventually the same outcome on the ground in Burma, we hold rather different views on how that will best be achieved. We firmly believe that any Burmese representation to international bodies—the noble Lord mentioned ASEAN—should not breach the spirit of the EU Common Position. We believe that the Burmese Foreign Minister should not be granted a visa to attend the ASEAN meeting. We take a very different view from the one articulated by the noble Lord.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister realise that many of us do not accept the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and believe that the democratic forces in Burma, which have reasserted themselves over many years and won a clear election victory, should be supported? In the light of her last reply, will the Minister consider working closely with the new committee for the representation of the people's parliament which has the support of a clear majority of the elected members, including many who are now in detention, and encourage, for example, the International Parliamentary Association and others to work with that committee to represent our support for democracy and the democratic forces in Burma?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support of the Government's position on this. Earlier I mentioned the work we are undertaking with our partners on a UN Commission on Human Rights draft resolution. We hope to ensure that such a draft resolution includes a reference to the committee representing the people's parliament. We hope that will be a positive step which will give proper encouragement to those who support democracy within Burma.
To the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I would say that in many ways our policy is working. We have seen, for example, our policy on trade working. During 1998 UK exports to Burma decreased by about 18 per cent. compared with 1997. The action we are taking together with our EU partners is having some effect, we believe, on the Burmese economy.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister has said that she would like the UK to strengthen the EU's Common Position on this matter. Can she say by
1230
what mechanism that would be achieved in the working group concerned? Would it be by some form of Euro majority, or by unanimity?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we shall be looking at all sorts of ways to try to strengthen the position, depending on the particular action that might be agreed. Sadly, as I said in my original Answer to my noble friend, at the moment there is no consensus. Were there to be a consensus, of course, the way in which it would be achieved would be a question of what the subject of that consensus was.

"Banana War": Effect on Trade
3.23 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the action of the United States regarding the "Banana war" affects adversely various industries of the United Kingdom, in particular the carton manufacturing industry; and whether they will take: steps to negotiate with the Government of the United States with a view to ending the punitive action which it has taken.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the action of the United States Government in targeting various EU industries in the dispute over the EU's banana import regime has been having an adverse effect on all the sectors concerned, including the folded carton industry. That is why the Government and the European Commission have been working hard to get a resolution to the dispute. The publication of the World Trade Organisation panel reports on 12th April means that there is now a fresh opportunity for the EU to work with the US and the other interested parties to avoid unnecessary damage to our industries and to our trade relations generally.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful Answer. While I welcome the help that the Government have already given to the cashmere exporters, mainly in Scotland, will the Government also assist those who export cartons? In my former constituency, they have been hit severely, causing unemployment on a large scale. On the question of getting the European Union to observe the World Trade Organisation arbitrators, will the Government insist that the banana quotas must be revised so that the United States will end their discriminatory tariffs?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the scheme that the Government brought forward to guarantee the bonds requested by US Customs in respect of cashmere knitwear was developed in response to a particular feature of the cashmere industry, which is, of course, of a highly seasonal nature. Now we are working hard to see whether we can displace the remaining US retaliation by other means, possibly by an interim solution linked to a definitive new regime which is clearly and irrefutably WTO compatible. That is the

1231
direction of the negotiations now under way. To conclude them speedily and to obtain an EU alignment as early as possible is most important.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, without in any way prejudicing the efforts being made by the institutions of the European Union to deal with this matter, will the noble Lord agree that this country, as the sixth most powerful trading nation in the world, has its own rights, on its own account, to pursue its own interests and to supplement those made by the European Union acting as an organisation?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is clear by the decisions of both Houses of Parliament, which represent our democracy, that we have decided to give certain powers to the EU to negotiate on our behalf. My opinion is that that was an extremely sensible thing to do because negotiations in international trade should be made at the level at which most people are likely to see successful outcomes. In issues of that nature, Europe has continued and will continue to serve us well. That does not stop us making our views on which to build a consensus position clear to our partners, as necessary.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether or not the reports that have been issued that the European Union's policies benefit the producers of bananas rather than the Caribbean islands are true statements?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the agreements that are in place currently are to ensure that all producers are given as fair a position as possible within a complex, multi-national negotiated scheme. In the next round of negotiations we shall try to ensure that the appropriate balance for all consumers is maintained.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the substantial quantities of bananas exported from Guadeloupe and Martinique are not the subject of this dispute, as those two Caribbean islands are legally part of the French Republic and, therefore, the United States has no valid basis for objecting to their exports? Is it not only the English-speaking Caribbean islands which stand to suffer?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is true to say that there are different definitions of producer within the complexity of the agreement currently in place. In trying to resolve a complex, multi-national negotiation between two large powers—Europe and the USA—I am sure that the interests of all consumers will be taken into account.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the Americans were forced by the World Trade Organisation to reduce their exorbitant sanctions, will the Minister tell the House why the Secretary of State for Scotland was sent to negotiate that those releases be allocated mostly to Scotland? Given that the Government said that they would fund the deposits for
1232
the cashmere trade, why could not those funds be allocated to other United Kingdom industries, such as those mentioned by my noble friend, which are suffering greatly? Or is it because of the Scottish elections and there will be very few Labour votes in Huntingdon?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I said in answer to an earlier question, as I am sure the noble Baroness heard, that the specific release granted temporarily for the cashmere industry was based on the fact that it is a seasonal trade. It is surprising that the Opposition find it necessary to laugh at or be confused by a successful operation by a British Minister to alleviate damage to any sector of industry in Great Britain, or that they feel it is something to be wondered at.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, is the Minister finding any understanding in the United States that while many of us want the European Union to be committed to free trade, there is some unease that there is too much domination of corporate power in some of these interests, whether it is bananas, GM food or hormone-treated beef? Is there any understanding in the United States that this is not just a free trade issue? There are also environmental concerns and concerns about corporate power.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I agree that these are complex issues and do not just reside on the relationships in trade, which in general terms are very good between the USA and Europe. To ensure that I do not stray too far into a long answer on environmental issues of sustainable development, perhaps the noble Baroness will read the excellent Hansard report of the debate last night which went into these issues for at least four hours.

Govan Shipyard
3.32 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made by the task force set up to find a buyer for the Govan shipyard, in view of its planned sale by Kvaerner.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, since its formation, the task force has had a round of exploratory meetings with a range of interested parties, including the management and workforces of the Govan shipyard and Clydebank engineering works, the local enterprise companies, local authorities and other organisations with an interest in the future of the companies. These meetings will, I trust, be the start of a process which will allow Kvaerner to dispose of its operations on Clydeside through arrangements that ensure continuing employment on the present scale in shipbuilding and engineering.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and wish the task force well. Will the Minister

1233
comment on Swan Hunter's interest in the yard, and in particular press speculation that it is only interested in the yard for small ship manufacture? As this is the last major large shipbuilding non-military yard left on the Clyde, and we already have two small yards further down the river in the form of Ferguson's of Port Glasgow and Ailsa at Troon, does not the Minister feel that we have an over-capacity of small shipbuilding and that we should be concentrating on getting a large builder to take over the Govan yard to ensure the long-term future for the workforce of that yard?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, there have been a number of expressions of interest in the Govan shipyard since the task force was formed, and no doubt other expressions of interest have gone to the Kvaerner company as the owner of the assets. We were pleased, as was everyone on Clydeside, that Swan Hunter came forward with a proposition. At the moment that is in rudimentary form. It does not contain a business plan. It has gone away to think about aspects of operations on Clydeside in more detail, having met the task force; and no doubt that will be subject to commercial negotiations with Kvaerner at the appropriate time.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, are not the Government concerned about their economic policies in Scotland, in that under their policies we have lost 14,000 jobs in two years? Also, can the Minister tell me whether there is a possibility of advancing orders by the Ministry of Defence for roll-on roll-off ferries, which I understand are not subject to European Union competitive policy? That might be an important way of enhancing the bids for the new yard.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the figure quoted is not one that is familiar to me. From the statistics produced yesterday, the civilian workforce job series suggested that 25,000 extra jobs were created in 1998 in Scotland. Total employment has fallen over the year by 16,000. Noble Lords will be interested to hear that, based on ILO unemployment statistics, there was a decline of 5,000 in the unemployment figures in Scotland over the year, down to a figure of 7.2 per cent.—less than that of the North-East, Merseyside, Wales or indeed London.
On the second point, my understanding is that we have in prospect the possibility of building six ferries. These are commercial vessels. They need not be built; they could be supplied as part of a PFI order, and therefore the noble Lord is incorrect in asserting that they could be directed and would not be subject to European restrictions. I shall investigate that and if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, at least, sympathise with the position in which he finds himself of possibly being the Labour Government Minister who presides over the demise of the last major shipyard in Scotland, especially
1234
as I know he started work in that very yard many years ago? However, I hope he will be able to tell the House that the Government's objective is to save a shipyard that builds major ships, as my noble friend Lord Rowallan asked. That is vitally important. Is the Minister aware that any diminution of that role for Govan would mean a huge reduction in jobs? Is he further aware that that would add to the 16,000 fewer jobs we have in Scotland since this time last year? Lastly, does he appreciate the positive and sympathetic attitude of the Opposition in this case in contrast to the attitude taken by the then Opposition when Conservative governments had to face dramatic closures in Scotland.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as a point of correction, I started my working life in a small shipyard with only 5,000 men next door to the shipyard in question. But we take seriously the threat to the building of large vessels in the Clyde. That is not in any way to diminish the achievements of Ferguson's shipyard further down the river which has been extremely successful in winning new work. But it would be the ambition of the task force—ably led by Sir Gavin Laird who has a great deal of engineering arid shipbuilding experience on the task force—to try to ensure that we find employment through arrangements that maintain work at its present level. But I wish to stress that, although 800 jobs are threatened in Govan, almost 800 further jobs are threatened in Clydebank, not in shipbuilding but in engineering. We will therefore make every effort to try to get a positive outcome for both sides of the Clyde.

European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 so as to disqualify staff and employees of European Community institutions from standing in United Kingdom elections to the European Parliament. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Dartmouth.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

University College London Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
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 first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 49).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
FUTURE COMMITTEE ACTIVITY

1. The Committee has given further consideration to the future committee work of the House. Our Second Report, Session 1997–98, noted proposals including:

(1) a new committee on Overseas Trade to review developments since the last committee on that subject reported in 1985;

(2) the retention of a sixth sub-committee of the European Communities Committee, added experimentally in 1996;

(3) a committee with functions relating to human rights;

(4) the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny.

2. In addition, the following further proposals have now been put to us:

(5) a joint committee on House of Lords Reform, after the Royal Commission has reported;

(6) a committee to scrutinise treaties;

(7) a select committee on the Obscenity Bill [HL] introduced by the Earl of Halsbury.

3. We understand that the Clerk of the Parliaments plans to strengthen the staff resources available to serve committees, but that recruitment of additional clerks will not be possible before the autumn. Moreover, the availability of Lords to serve on committees and of accommodation to house additional staff are factors which limit the possible expansion of committee activity.

4. We propose to meet again before the summer recess to consider further what new committee activity to recommend.

OBSCENITY BILL
5. At this stage we recommend that the Obscenity Bill [HL] should not be referred to a select committee. In view of the competing pressures we consider it inappropriate that resources should be devoted to a committee on a bill with no realistic chance of becoming law.
SCRUTINY OF TREATIES
6. A strong case was put to us for the appointment of a committee to scrutinise treaties. But we have noted that the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords has, in its consultation paper issued earlier this month, explicitly posed the question whether the second chamber should play a greater role in the scrutiny of draft treaties. We have therefore concluded that it would not be timely to appoint such a committee in advance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY
7. A joint committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill was appointed at the beginning of March, with terms of reference requiring it to report by the end of April. We understand that the Government is likely to propose further pre-legislative scrutiny of this kind, for example in relation to the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill published with the White Paper Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm 4298).
8. In principle we welcome the involvement of this House in pre-legislative scrutiny. But in view of the pressure for other committee activity we hope that it will be possible to co-ordinate the appointment of similar committees in future and to give reasonable notice in each case. Because of the variety of subject matter of draft bills, we endorse the appointment of an ad hoc committee for each draft bill.
9. We were informed by the Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that that committee had accepted an invitation from the joint committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill to submit a memorandum on the delegated powers in the bill. We welcome this development, and we hope that the example may be followed in future. When a draft bill is made available for pre-legislative scrutiny, it can only be beneficial for the delegated powers to be subject to scrutiny at an early stage.
GOVERNMENT REPLIES TO REPORTS FROM THE DELEGATED POWERS AND DEREGULATION COMMITTEE
10. We have considered the recommendation made in paragraph 50 of the Special Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, Session 1997–98. That recommendation related to the examination of bills by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. After welcoming the practice of some Government Departments of responding in writing to the Committee's recommendations, the Committee went on: "We invite the Liaison Committee to consider whether all Departments should, in future, respond succinctly in writing to those recommendations from this Committee for which they are responsible. We consider that it could assist the House's deliberations if such letters were routinely made available to front-bench spokesmen on the Bill in question, and placed in the Library of the House".
11. We endorse this recommendation, including the proposal that copies of responses should be provided to front-bench spokesmen and placed in the Library of the House. Whereas responses to reports from other committees are expected to be produced within two months (or six months in the case of the Science and Technology Committee), it would not be appropriate to lay down a time limit for such responses. They need to be made in good time for amendments to be tabled to the bill in question. In some cases that will require Departments to act within a few days, and we recognise that occasionally the timetable for the passage of a bill may make the provision of a written response impracticable.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may just say how pleased I am that something is not in this report. I know that it was recommended to the Liaison Committee that, in order to make room for new committees, some of the existing work of the current committees should be cut back. In particular, I make reference to the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. As I understand it, there was a suggestion that it should have only one, and not two, inquiries a year.
I should very much like to support the decision of the Liaison Committee that the latter Select Committee should continue to undertake two inquiries a year. I say that because, long before I became a member of it, outside the House it was regarded as one of our most respected committees. At a time when we are discussing the reform of the House, it really would be very sad if the work of that committee were to be cut back. So: three cheers for the Liaison Committee!
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I welcome the proposal from the Liaison Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills. I have been suggesting for some time that it would be advisable to have a new Select Committee to look at all draft Bills. I see that the Liaison Committee is proposing ad hoc committees for each draft Bill in view of the variety of subject matters. I fully accept that that is a more satisfactory way of proceeding than my original proposal. However, I hope that there will be some continuity in the membership of these ad hoc committees and, in particular, of the chairmen. After all, it is a new procedure which is being developed. These ad hoc committees will have to work out ground rules for the best method of proceeding. I believe that some continuity of membership would be desirable. I hope that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will feel that that is a proposal which merits consideration.

1237
However, as far as concerns the principle, I believe that this proposal will greatly improve the efficiency of parliamentary scrutiny of Bills. The Bills will be considered in draft before they are set in concrete. It is that much easier at that stage to meet criticisms, and thereby eliminate weaknesses, than would be the case later on. Further, I believe that your Lordships' House is very well fitted to fulfil that role. There is knowledge and experience in this House of virtually every subject under the sun. Indeed, your Lordships' House will have more time to do this job than the departmental Select Committees in another place. They have been allocated the job there but they are already heavily loaded with their existing work. Therefore, it would be an extremely valuable new function for your Lordships' House. I also hope that, when taking evidence, the committees will not only take evidence from Ministers and the departments concerned, but that they will also involve outside interests who are knowledgeable of the subjects concerned.
As I said, I greatly welcome the proposal. I give great credit to the Government for introducing draft Bills. I believe it is generally accepted throughout the House that this is a good move. There is no doubt in my mind that this early scrutiny of Bills, before they are set in concrete, will eventually save time on the Floor of the House when the proper Bill is introduced, especially as regards the Committee and remaining stages. It will produce better Bills and, above all, it will lead to better parliamentary scrutiny of legislation.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his kind words about the work of the committee. I am sure that members of that committee will also be most grateful for what he said. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that the Liaison Committee is sympathetic to the general point which the noble Lord makes. I certainly endorse all that he said about the reputation and excellent work of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology.
However, the Select Committee on Committee Work of the House chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on which I had the privilege to serve with other noble Lords, reported in 1992. It recommended that there might well be occasions, because of the demands from your Lordships' House for committee work, when the Select Committee on Science and Technology should undertake only one inquiry a year. I would not want it to be thought—I am sure that the Liaison Committee is of this view—that that possibility has been ruled out. We must measure our work by the resources available. Nevertheless, as I have already indicated, the committee is very sympathetic to what the noble Lord has said about the splendid work done by that Select Committee.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. for his kind words about the recommendations made today by the Liaison Committee. It was characteristically kind of him to let me know before the House sat today that he was proposing to raise this point. As regards the noble Lord's point about continuity of membership, that is a matter for the Committee of Selection when the moment arises and
1238
then for your Lordships' House. However, I shall certainly ensure that the point he has made about continuity is borne in mind.
The Liaison Committee was most grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion that he made back in the autumn of last year and which he renewed in time for us to consider it at the recent: meeting of the committee. As the noble Lord has seen from the recommendations made this afternoon by the committee, it was very sympathetic to the points that he has made.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 29,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 30 to 33,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 34 and 35.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
European Parliamentary Elections (Gibraltar) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Scottish Enterprise Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Water Industry Bill
3.49 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Disconnection for non-payment of charges]:
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Schedule to be inserted in the Water Industry Act 1991]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 12, line 23, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 25
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 with which it is grouped. I appreciate that it may seem a little odd to jump straight in with amendments to the first schedule to the Bill but that has occurred because there is such widespread acclaim for Clause 1, which will in future prevent disconnection for the non-payment of charges. Schedule 1 applies certain provisions in that regard.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to remove from the definition of "accommodation for the elderly" in paragraph 3(2) the words,
"but which is not a dwelling within the meaning of paragraph 1 above or a house in multiple occupation".
I believe that residential accommodation for the elderly could constitute a dwelling. If it is not, what is each unit of that accommodation? I ask the Minister whether any harm is done by the deletion that I seek? I am curious to understand the reason for the qualification. That is a short point.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to reduce the age in subparagraph (3) from 60 to 55 with regard to the definition of residential accommodation for elderly people. This is not a personal application on my part; it simply reflects the realisation—which appalled me—that sheltered accommodation and accommodation for elderly people, particularly in the private sector, tends to accept people of 55 and over. Therefore I believe it may be more appropriate to include the age limit which now appears to be increasingly applied, particularly by firms such as McCarthy and Stone.
The most serious amendment in this group is a probing amendment. I have no doubt that it should be couched in far more technical terms. Will the Minister confirm that premises used by local authorities to house homeless people will be included in the premises which are protected by this schedule? In another place on 10th February the Minister addressed amendments which listed various premises to be protected. He mentioned children's homes. He referred to premises providing personal care and said that,
"very strong arguments have been made for protecting children's homes".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/99; col. 404.]
He mentioned the importance the Government quite rightly attach to protecting children. He added, also at col. 404,
"I am erring on the side of caution, but there are no absolute guarantees that the relevant local authority would become aware immediately that a home had had its water supply disconnected … On due reflection, we propose to extend protection to residential care homes".
1240
He said that it was right to provide added reassurance in this regard.
The Committee will be aware that concern has been expressed about the standards of some bed-and-breakfast accommodation which, simply for lack of more appropriate accommodation, sometimes has to be used by local authorities to carry out their duties to house people who are homeless. Many of the people who find themselves in such accommodation are families with children. In order to be entirely sure that the kind of protection the Government clearly want to see provided is provided, this amendment seeks to include that kind of accommodation in the schedule. I shall be happy to be assured that this kind of establishment is already covered by the provisions of the schedule. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The amendments which the noble Baroness has discussed seek to extend the provisions with regard to protected premises. I understand the reasons behind the amendments but it is our contention that the Bill as drafted meets virtually all of the cases which she has mentioned.
Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment, as the noble Baroness has said. It would not in fact add any protected premises to the list. The words that the amendment seeks to delete are there simply to prevent overlap between paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 in the schedule. All private dwelling houses are protected by paragraph 1, and all houses in multiple occupation are protected by paragraph 2. Therefore we do not need in paragraph 3 to protect accommodation for the elderly that is either a private dwelling house or a house in multiple occupation. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. This points to one of the problems we have had in drawing up Schedule 1; namely, that of ensuring that everyone who should be protected is protected, without duplication or overlap. In identifying as a separate category for protection "accommodation for the elderly", we responded to concern in the other place that there might be some such accommodation not otherwise protected although we expected the vast majority of sheltered accommodation to be protected under paragraphs 1 or 2 of the schedule. That is why we included paragraph 3 in the schedule for extra protection. Indeed, the Government met every single concern that was raised in another place about the scope of protection. However, the further this process of adding protection is carried, the more remote the circumstances and the more difficult it is to see that there is a gap in the protection. I do not think there is a gap in this regard.
As regards Amendment No. 2, I suppose I should declare approximately the same interest as the noble Baroness. I do not really believe that there is likely to be a category of sheltered accommodation for the over-55s which is not already protected against disconnection by reason of paragraph 3, or by another provision of this schedule. If there is a particular highly specialised form of such accommodation which is not included in the provision, perhaps the noble Baroness will discuss that with me and I can consider the matter. However, on the face of it, even if there is such accommodation,

1241
sheltered accommodation will not be excluded from protection simply because there are some occupiers under the age of 60. Under the wording of the paragraph it is the letting practice of the landlord that matters, and that is sufficiently elastic to permit a few younger inhabitants, or perhaps I should add, relatively young inhabitants. Of course, water companies will be well aware of the prohibition of disconnection set out in this Bill. In paragraph 3 there is full protection for sheltered accommodation for the elderly in the sense that the word "elderly" is generally understood. I ask the Committee to leave paragraph 3 as it stands.
Amendment No. 3 is slightly more complicated. It seeks to protect accommodation for the homeless. This is clearly another case of overlap with existing provisions. Rented dwellings, including council houses, are protected by paragraph 1. Houses in multiple occupation, (HMOs) are covered by paragraph 2. Between them, those two provisions must cover most if not all premises in which a local authority houses homeless people. In particular, the definition of houses in multiple occupation has been interpreted widely by the courts. For example, a hostel has been held to be an HMO, as has a hotel accommodating homeless persons.
However, we recognise the point behind this amendment; namely, that some accommodation provided for housing the homeless might not be protected. In our view most such accommodation is likely to be deemed an HMO and is therefore already clearly protected. There may be a residual problem in that, depending on the type of property, some hotels may not be classified as HMOs, although they may sometimes be used by local authorities to house the homeless. But some of those same hotels may also have other guests of all kinds on all terms and conditions. Water companies do not have the information to differentiate between the different status of different guests.
Unfortunately, if we extended protection in that way to all premises accommodating the homeless, the effect would be to prevent disconnection of all hotels. We do not believe that is appropriate. Indeed, taking that view, it would also be quite protective. Accommodation provided for the homeless must by law be suitable for the homeless. If disconnection were threatened the result would be the same as if the premises were threatened by closure for reasons of health and safety; in other words, the guests would immediately have to be moved and the local authority would have to find another place of accommodation. It is not realistic to specify hotels in general under this clause, which is the implication.
The welfare of homeless people is safeguarded by the existing clauses. Hotels are competitive commercial establishments and they should be subject to the same rules as regards their water supply as other such commercial premises. I believe that we have covered the concerns that lie behind the three amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that reassuring response. I take the point that the accommodation, the subject of Amendment No. 3, must be suitable, but there is a short period—one would hope very short—between a potential cut or disconnection and the authority discovering that the premises had been disconnected. That seems to underlie the Government's reasoning on children's homes and so on—it was referred to in another place—and is why I thought it was worth airing this matter.
I am reassured to know that most establishments of this type will be covered; it is the minority which are a cause for concern. Perhaps I should rely on the fact that an establishment which is so badly nut that disconnection might happen would not he likely to attract guests on a commercial basis. I thank the Minister for his comments on the other amendments. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Regulations concerning charges schemes]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 16, after ("principles") insert ("(which shall include affordability)")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5 and to Amendment No. 6, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, which is in the same grouping.
Amendment No. 4 deals with the charges schemes' regulations. Clause 5 enables the Secretary of State to specify the principles to which undertakers must have regard when calculating charges to customers. But what those principles should be are not stated on the face of the Bill. No doubt many of your Lordships could produce a list of principles, and I may be told that that could cause difficulties because once one starts describing detailed principles one might be knocking out others with an equally good claim. However, it is worth airing the principle of affordability. It is something of a truism perhaps, but it is accepted that water is a human necessity. I am concerned that access to water will continue to depend to an extent on ability to pay.
Although it is not perhaps accepted that the objective of the Bill is extended metering, that will certainly be an outcome. It is the theme behind the Bill. That in itself imposes cost pressures on consumers. Those who argue for metering often say that it is the increased costs which will lead to some reduction in the volume of water used. I accept entirely the steps that the Government have taken to protect vulnerable groups. The protection is to limit the bills of vulnerable groups to the cost of the average measured bill. That is not the same as the bill being affordable. It could be that the average bill will be high in a particular area and still not be affordable, and poorer customers will still be under pressure to economise in their use of water. By bringing the

1243
amendment forward today I am hoping that the Minister will be able to give the Committee some assurances about the principles likely to be included by the Secretary of State and that we will not have a problem of water charges being in any way unaffordable.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to ensure that the regulations are practicable for the undertakers. Having looked in the first amendment at the position of certain consumers, I am now turning to the position of the undertakers. This clause and the previous clause allow charges to be modified by the regulator so that the bills of vulnerable customers will, in effect, be subsidised by other customers. That is a change to the way the industry is regulated. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will table an amendment later about consultation. I agree with her that it is vital that the Government consult very widely on regulations to ensure that they are practicable and reach the groups in greatest need.
I am told that the water industry is very keen to be involved in the debate on how best to implement the proposals. The regulations must be the subject of wide consultations with expert groups. They should also—this is the point of the amendment—reflect the categories of customers already recognised by the DSS. We should consider whether the system should be implemented by the Government. Admittedly, the water industry is very profitable, but we are loading new regulations upon it and we should pause to consider what the overall effect might be. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 6, grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 which have been spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, is in hospital at the moment and, although the amendment stands also in his name, he regrets that he is not able to speak to it today.
At this stage, this is a probing amendment, but one to which we feel it may be necessary to return at a later stage depending on the response from the Minister. My honourable friend the Member for Meriden raised a similar issue in the other place, but the Government's response was unconvincing, to say the least. I hope that they will either produce a more convincing reply today or, alternatively and preferably, having had longer to consider the matter, they will now concede the point.
The Secretary of State or, by delegation, the director general, has power to set the terms of an undertaker's appointment—in other words, his licence to do business—by virtue of Section 6 of the 1991 Act. This includes the general basis of an undertaker's charging scheme. Section 143 gives the undertaker wide rights to produce a charging scheme, but that is subject to the terms of his appointment by the Secretary of State or, by delegation, by the Director General of Water Services. There is a model instrument of appointment which includes a specific obligation to ensure that a charging scheme is in force, especially in relation to domestic supplies, drainage and infrastructure. All those existing powers should be entirely sufficient. No evidence has been proffered that the existing arrangements are not working satisfactorily.
1244
Clause 5 inserts a new section, Section 143A, in the Water Industry Act 1991, giving the Secretary of State power to make any regulations—I stress the word "any"—in relation to the provisions of charging schemes. No adequate reason has been given for that proposed shift of powers from the director back to the Secretary of State.
Subsection (1) of the new clause gives the Secretary of State absolutely unlimited power as to the regulations, subject to one small restriction in subsection (4) to which I shall refer. Subsections (2) and (3) add to the already unrestricted powers of the Secretary of State, specifying the matters in relation to which he may issue regulations. But I stress that that is in addition to the wide powers that the Secretary of State will already have under subsection (1). The small restriction in subsection (4) to which I referred is that the Secretary of State's regulatory powers may not be used to limit the total revenues of the water companies, fixed in accordance with approved charging schemes. In other words, the only restriction that the Secretary of State offers on the new, sweeping powers that he seeks is that the total income of water companies may not be reduced by him, but the sources of income can be shuffled around between different categories of consumer.
The water industry is supposed to be deregulated, industry, with the public interest being protected by a totally independent regulator. This clause, particularly subsection (1), gives the Secretary of State overriding powers that are so wide that one wonders what future function the regulator will perform, except to stand in the firing line when anything goes wrong with the day-to-day operations of the industry.
The short and simple amendment that I propose simply prevents the Secretary of State, in exercising the powers that he seeks under Clause 5, from interfering with any charging scheme validly approved by the director. The powers in the 1991 Act to impose conditions on the original licence or appointment of an undertaker are not affected.
As I said, a differently worded amendment, but one to similar effect, was proposed by my honourable friend the Member for Meriden in the other place. The amendment replaced the draconian power to make regulations in relation to charging schemes with one requiring an undertaker to have regard to guidance as regards the various elements of any charging scheme. In other words, the Secretary of State was not to be able to move the goal-posts, either in relation to existing schemes or for future schemes which it is deemed should be identical. I commend my amendment to the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: It may be helpful if I outline the system of protection that is reflected in Clause 5. The protection will be aimed at two groups: large families on low incomes, and those with medical conditions requiring a high use of water. It will take the form of eligibility for a bill based on average measured use.
We propose that protection should be available for, in the first protected group, families with three or more children in receipt of specified benefits; in the second

1245
group, we propose that protection should be offered to those with particular medical conditions. We wish to ensure that the same protection applies right across England and within Wales, so that we do not end up with a patchwork of different entitlements. That has implications for the regulations, which will enable Ministers to ensure that the right arrangements are in place and that the same protection will indeed be available. It has implications also for the less prescriptive guidance.
Turning to the amendments, the requirement is for a director-general to have regard to such guidance in carrying out his responsibilities. In relation to the first amendment, I assure the Committee that the Government would not want to provide for a conflicting approach between regulations and guidance. And of course the Government will be working closely with the regulator, Ofwat, to ensure that the introduction and operation of the new arrangements spelt out in the Bill go as smoothly as possible and that that relationship will continue.
One effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would be to prevent the Secretary of State from issuing regulations to apply to a charges scheme that had already been approved. I understand the anxiety expressed, but I assure the Committee that we have no intention of making regulations which would, for example, come into force in the middle of a charging year. Such a course of action would clearly not be helpful. That may be the kind of situation that lies behind this amendment.
I also assure the Committee that we are concerned about the question of affordability. Since privatisation in 1989, customers have seen water bills in England and Wales rise by over a third. The House will no doubt be aware that we have recently told water companies and their regulators that an ambitious programme of environmental improvement needs to be accompanied by a significant reduction in average bills. We shall certainly wish to consider the principle of affordability in relation to customers' charges. Indeed, it is already an important principle behind our proposals for regulations. I assure noble Lords that we share their concerns about affordability. We have demonstrated that we have already gone further than merely expressing concern and are taking steps to make water bills affordable.
Nevertheless, we believe that it would be unduly prescriptive to make the change that is suggested in the amendment. It would unnecessarily narrow the scope of regulations that could be laid under the provision. While recognising the importance of affordability, other factors must always be taken into account in calculating and imposing charges. I refer, for example, to the effect of changes in the environment, the impact on sustainable development and other issues. I do not therefore believe that this amendment would be the best way of carrying forward the concerns that lie behind it.
The effect of Amendment No. 6 would clearly be to shift administration of the scheme to protect the vulnerable groups of which I have spoken and charge the costs to the Government. There is clearly a role for
1246
government in this area. I have already spoken about the need for uniformity. But water companies also have a major role to play. Companies reflect more closely their customers' concerns than the Government can. They send out information about charges and charging methods; they know who their customers are; they know the basis on which customers pay their bills.
The noble Baroness asked for an indication of how we envisage the system of protection working. We have explained previously whom we expect to be covered by the protection. We shall expect water companies to ensure that such groups are aware of the protection to be afforded under regulations. Water companies, with their closer contact with customers, are in a better position than the Government to ensure that customers are aware of all the charging options open to them. Customers having been made aware of the protection, we should then expect those who are eligible for it to apply to the water company. The checking procedures that are to be carried out by the companies will be set out in regulations that are under preparation.
It would be neither possible nor appropriate for the Government to identify all the various individuals who are eligible for protection. For example, there is no central record of all those suffering from particular medical conditions. Meeting the costs of protecting vulnerable customers must be an essential part of the new water charging system proposed under the Bill. It is not an optional extra, but a key measure to protect customers from severe hardship. It is therefore right that the costs of the scheme should be met by water companies. We are keen to keep to an absolute minimum the bureaucracy involved in the proposals; for example, by identifying pre-existing documentation, which should make eligibility easier to establish. Also, the proposed protection—a bill based on average measured use—is easy to administer.
We shall continue to work closely with the water industry and others to ensure that the arrangements for offering protection fit as effectively as possible with existing water charging administration and so minimise the costs to all concerned. But I do not think it would be right to pass the costs on to the taxpayer and away from the water charge payer.
I hope that that goes some way towards making clearer the intentions of the clause and the regulations that we would issue under it. I hope that, at least at this stage, the two noble Baronesses who moved and spoke to the amendments will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I will read carefully what the noble Lord said in respect of Amendment No. 6. I am concerned because the powers that the Secretary of State seeks are rather wide, but at this stage I shall not move my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I urged the noble Baroness to speak before me so that I could withdraw my amendment, which is part of the group. Before I do that, I believe that the Minister referred to Amendment No. 5 as being Amendment No. 6. After he had been speaking for a moment, I realised that he was addressing Amendment No. 5.

1247
We could discuss at some length—but I shall not encourage the Committee to do so—who, at the end of the day, bears costs and whether customers and taxpayers are the same people.
I, too, will carefully read what the Minister said and perhaps return to the subject. The one point I wish to make is that the DSS has information about those on benefits, one of the two groups to which the Minister referred. I take the point that there may not be a central record of those with medical conditions, but as regards eligibility arising from benefits, central government, through the DSS and the various agencies, has those records.
As for Amendment No. 4, the Minister said that the Government do not wish to end up with a patchwork of regulations, but we have perhaps not a patchwork but a quilt, with rather large sections of undertakers. So it is not as though we were dealing with only one undertaker. There may be an argument for some slight flexibility of approach. However, I take the point about being careful not to restrict the principles by starting to list them. I shall carefully read what the Minister said on that. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert—
("() The power to make regulations under this section shall only be exercised after consultation with such persons and bodies as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult in relation to the proposed regulations."").
The noble Baroness said: As we have already discussed, Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill allow the Secretary of Sate to make regulations which must be taken into account by the director when companies' charging schemes are approved by him. As the Minister said, the regulations will protect vulnerable groups such as those on low incomes or those who use higher than average volumes of water for such reasons as age, ill-health or disability.
I remind the noble Lord that during the Second Reading he gave the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, an undertaking to pass on to the appropriate quarter the question of possible special provisions for those who need to use large quantities of water for religious purposes, especially the Moslem community. We have already made it clear that we fully support the protection of vulnerable groups and I understand that the water companies also do so.
Clauses 4 and 5 alter the whole ethos of the regulation of the water industry. Since privatisation in 1989, the regulator has been entirely free of short-term political pressures. Under the two clauses, some authority over the industry is to be taken back into the hands of government. I am not making any political point here, but it is right to note that under these clauses the regulator will be compelled to take into account guidance from the Secretary of State. It is, I submit, important that the regulations should not erode the
1248
independence of the regulator; nor should they lead to undue and short-term political or populist interference in the regulatory system or in the operation of the industry. It is essential that any regulations will be acceptable to all parties concerned, especially the vulnerable groups and groups who wish to be considered as such. The Moslem community mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is an example of a group which should be enabled to make representations, irrespective of whether its claim is ultimately accepted.
Obviously, to avoid total anarchy, claims and representations will mostly be made by the organisations representing the interests of such claimants. It is essential, especially when the first set of regulations is published, that we do not find that a certain group has been left out or that one group has been included but a similar but slightly different one has been overlooked. It is no less essential that the regulation should be correct from the first, rather than that the Secretary of State should have to revise his guidance.
Finally, it is equally essential that the implications of the regulations are fully understood by everyone affected by them, whether it be the water companies, their customers, or the special interest groups that have been given protection or refused it. I suspect that decisions made after detailed consultation will protect the Secretary of State from potential proceedings for judicial review. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I believe consultations of that kind are absolutely essential.
In the debate on Clause 5 in Committee in the other place, the Minister for the Environment said:
"We shall, of course, consult on the regulations in the draft".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A. 12/1/99: co1.68.]
I unreservedly accept that the intention of the Government is that the regulations be practical, fair and agreed by all interested parties. The amendment I propose simply implements and goes no further than the promise made by the Minister which I have just quoted. I trust that the Government will accept it.
Amendment No. 8 is in the same group, and perhaps while I am on my feet I may speak to it. It is a short, simple amendment, to insert into this clause a common provision. But although it is short and simple, I must tell the noble Lord that it is absolutely necessary. Indeed, it is a type of provision which is recognised to be more and more necessary these days when so many of the statutes that we pass are simply enabling Acts which place increasing legislative power. in the form of secondary legislation, in the hands of Ministers—legislation which does not receive the full scrutiny of Parliament by passing through the three stages in both Houses.
The Committee knows well that there is a vast difference between statutory instruments subject to negative resolutions and those which require positive or affirmative resolutions, which at least ensure that there is an opportunity in each House to discuss the proposed order just once in place of the three times for a full Act of Parliament. To do them credit, in the last Bill with which I was extensively involved, the National

1249
Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Government accepted the principle of positive resolution procedures for orders that were made under that Act. In this case, we simply ask for that same procedure to apply to the orders made by the Secretary of State under this vital, indeed key, clause of the Bill. When this point was discussed in Committee in the other place, the Minister for the Environment rejected the amendment on the grounds that,
"the Water Industries Act 1991 contains a number of regulation-making powers that are subject to negative rather than affirmative resolution".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A; 12/1/99, col. 69.]
Indeed it does. But the regulations referred to relate to highly technical matters such as preventing contamination of water supplies and safeguarding the water supply itself. This section and the amendments to be made under it deal with the highly personalised matters of protecting the interests of vulnerable groups. To give an entirely fictitious example, perhaps persons with one type of skin complaint are treated no more or no less favourably than those with a different one and neither is treated differently from those undergoing dialysis at home. There will be Members of both Houses who will want to advocate or even oppose the case of one or other group or to question Ministers about the proposals. From a practical point of view, those are matters which should be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and adequate debate, if necessary.
The Minister in the other place also claimed that the regulation-making power is already constrained by Clause 5(4). I invite the Committee to glance at that subsection. It merely prevents the Secretary of State limiting the total revenue of the water companies. That has nothing at all to do with deciding whether a person suffering from weeping skin diseases, incontinence or intestinal diseases, should receive special consideration. Restricting the power of the Secretary of State to limit the revenue of water undertakings has nothing to do with what protection should be given to large families or those in receipt of various benefits.
When the Secretary of State produces his draft regulations, it is right and proper that Parliament should scrutinise them in a positive way rather than letting them slip through more or less by default as a result of the negative procedure. There can be absolutely no reason why the Secretary of State should resist this requirement that regulations to be made under this clause, which will affect so many people in a highly personalised way, should not receive the benefit of proper debate on a proper resolution. I trust that he will now accept this request for open government. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: As regards the first of this group of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, we have, as she indicated, made a number of commitments to consultation on the regulations. We have made it clear that we would be prepared to consider proposals for targeted protection where there is a real risk of hardship and with regard to any other related issues. That is a clear indication of the Government's desire to engage in constructive dialogue with all those involved in the
1250
system of water charging. I can assure the Committee that we shall, of course, continue this consultative approach in preparing the regulations made under this Bill. We attach considerable importance to consultation so that those most in need of assistance can be properly identified and so that we can also identify the best means to deliver assistance and protection. That consultation will be a key part in ensuring that we get the regulations right.
However, we already have clear assurances from my colleague, Alan Meale, in the other place, to consult on any regulations made under this Bill. I do not believe that we add particularly to that commitment if we put consultation on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 8 deals with the affirmative or negative resolution. We have explained why the powers for the Secretary of State are needed and why they are perfectly proper in terms of the role of the Minister in the regulation of the water utilities. We have spelt out in some detail what we intend to put into the regulations and how we will consult on them.
The power referred to by the noble Baroness in Clause 5(4), which circumscribes the powers of the Secretary of State, relates to the distinction between the powers of the director general and those of the Secretary of State. The director general is the economic regulator. The limitation on the Secretary of State's power makes it quite clear that, in using regulations, he should not tread on the toes of the director general in his function as the economic regulator.
We have also given a clear indication that the scope of the use of the regulations will be within the Government's legitimate social and environmental concerns, including those for the protection of vulnerable groups. That seems to us to be a normal function of regulations. After their initial use, it is extremely unlikely that any subsequent changes would be more than minor and technical updatings of the scope and nature of the protection offered for which the use of the affirmative resolution would not normally be considered proportionate.
Before making the initial regulations and in making any subsequent ones, we have clearly undertaken to consult publicly. As the noble Baroness said, but did not seem to accept, the use of the negative procedure is very much in line with the other regulation-making powers covering the water industry and in particular Section 213 of the 1991 Act, which I believe the noble Baroness referred to as being mainly technical matters exercisable under a negative resolution. They include much wider issues than merely technical matters, such as measures to ensure the delivery of water quality and that there is no contamination of the supply. There are also some technical matters relating to water fittings and so forth. A whole range of regulatory—making powers in the water industry, introduced by the previous government, are dealt with by the negative procedure.
It is also worth noting that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House has examined the proposals for delegated powers in this Bill. It has concluded that there is nothing in it which the Committee wishes to draw to the attention of the

1251
House. Therefore, there is no recommendation that we upgrade the regulatory-making powers under this clause so that they are taken by affirmative resolution. I do not believe that in this area the affirmative resolution procedure would be appropriate and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As I said previously, I shall look very carefully at what the Minister has said. However, I am disappointed by it. I commented on the fact that other regulations in the earlier Act are subject to the negative proposal, but here we are talking about vulnerable groups and possibly competing groups. I even mentioned to the noble Lord the problem that his noble friend Lord Ahmed had raised. I understand from the noble Lord that to date he has not received an answer on the matter. He believes that this matter should be considered. I shall not press the amendment at this stage. I believe that the Minister should consider the difference between this clause and those matters which are subject to the negative resolution procedure in the earlier Act. There is a distinction and it is a matter to which I shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert—
("Highway drainage charges.
143B. Without prejudice to the generality of section 143A (2)(a), regulations under that section shall ensure that items for which customers are not liable to pay a charge shall include highway drainage."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is as straightforward as it appears on the Marshalled List. It merely states that a water company shall not be able to pass on costs for the drainage of roads to the consumers. If one has the privilege and the financial rewards of supplying water to a series of customers and something goes wrong, it is not unreasonable to ask the water companies to make sure that the highways of the nation stay clear of great deluges caused through a failure in the supply system. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support my noble friend. In doing so, perhaps I may refer to the Government's paper on decisions following the consultations on water charging. I should like to place this on the record. I particularly welcome the comments made in paragraph 47 of that paper in which Government state that they believe it important to set out the charges in customers' bills in as transparent a manner as possible so that customers can see where their money has been spent and are aware of the individual elements which make up the sewerage charge. The Government expect water companies' bills to identify separately the foul drainage, surface water drainage and highway drainage elements.
That is not to say that I am not interested in hearing the response to the particular amendment. I am encouraged by the Government's keenness for transparency. If this amendment is not accepted, at least
1252
we shall know—I invite the Minister to confirm the words that I have just read—that the Government are keen that the individual elements of the bills are made entirely clear to the customers so that they know for what they are being charged.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This amendment would ensure that water consumers could not be charged for highways drainage as part of their water bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, there are some interesting arguments for removing liability for payment of highway drainage charges from water consumers, but any such changes would involve considerable upheaval. Transferring the funding obligations to highway authorities would mean most of the expenditure moving to local authorities and to the local authority finance system.
The vast majority of water customers pay unmeasured charges, generally related to the rateable value of their property. While there is not an exact parallel between rates and council tax, there would be very little difference between paying a property-based charge to a water company and paying a property-based charge to a local authority. It is therefore far from clear that any significant benefits would be associated with the change proposed in the amendment. Of course, any such change would need careful consideration by all interested parties and would need to be an issue for the longer term. However, we will keep this matter under review.
I am pleased to be able to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we believe it is important for customers' bills to set out charges as transparently as possible so that customers can see where their money is being spent and are aware of the different elements which make up their sewerage charge. We look to water companies to ensure that customers are aware of how much they pay for the separate elements of their sewerage bills. In the light of my response, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I shall want to study it carefully to see whether we have run this issue totally to ground. At the moment, I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Right of consumer to elect for charging by reference to volume]:
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 15, after ("below,") insert ("on payment of the cost of the meter and of its installation")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 21 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Addington, which are grouped together.
Amendment No. 10 takes us into Clause 6 of the Bill which deals with the consumer's right to elect for charging by volume; in other words, paying for what is

1253
consumed rather than paying on the basis of the rateable value of the property. The first amendment raises the question of the cost of metering. The Bill provides for free meters. However, I suggest to the Committee that there is no such thing as a free meter. It will have to be paid for.
Meters cost money to buy and to install. Ofwat has said in the past that it costs up to £200 for a basic meter in an external box. That payment has to come from somewhere or from someone—the "someone" will be the remainder of the customers, the majority of whom will not be metered. Therefore, in moving the amendment, I am raising the issue of whether there is a justification for such a subsidy.
The cost of meters is simply hidden. Households which prefer to stay with the rateable value basis will be subsidising those which opt for meters. In the short term, unless the undertakers absorb the charges, the bills will be inflated by an element that is unrelated to consumers' consumption. Indeed, one might say that, however it is dealt with, either the cost will feed directly into the bills going to the unmetered customers or will feed indirectly to them because the amounts being absorbed by the undertakers would otherwise have been available to reduce bills. I am concerned about the possible skewing of customer choice that might result from this.
Amendment No. 12 raises the issue of what will happen if it is not practicable to fix charges by reference to volume or, if by doing so, an increase in charges to other customers would take place. The amendment seeks to promote fairness and rational choice in charging, which is the Government's declared aim, in the face of the dice being loaded against the unmeasured consumer in an attempt, I suggest, to speed conversion towards metering. The Government's logic is that metering saves the industry money by avoiding the need for investment in new resource development. If that were so, there would not be a need for a redistribution of revenue and there could not be an objection to the amendment. If the Government are opposed to it, that might go to support the argument that metering—at least voluntary metering—does not save money over all.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to deal with the period of time within which a customer who has opted to use the freebie to move to a measured basis has to evaluate whether or not to stay with metering or to revert to unmeasured charges. The amendment seeks to allow consumers who are giving a meter a trial to revert to unmeasured charging without such a limit. Two points arise: first, whether there should be any limit at all; and, secondly, whether, if there is a limit, it should be the 12-month limit.
I suggest that 12 months is insufficient. Consumption year on year can be affected by a number of factors, not least by climate. The reason advanced for introducing the option to change—fitting the charging method to a consumer's circumstances—seems to justify an arguably indefinite period because people's circumstances vary over the years. If there is to be real choice—during the proceedings on the Bill we have been talking about real choice for the consumer—it cannot be time-limited.
There is a more technical point. If the trial period is exactly a year, the customer will not have a full year's bills on which to make a judgment. I am seeking through the amendment to achieve a better balance between consumer protection and the other concerns that are raised in the Bill.
Finally, Amendment No. 21 seeks to amend Clause 7, which deals with the restriction on change in the basis of charging. The amendment seeks to allow consumers who use meters, by way of serving an unmeasured charges notice, to experiment with an unmeasured charge and find the tariff which best suits them and so enjoy the same protection as unmeasured consumers against an unsuitable tariff. At the Committee stage of the Bill noble Lords spoke of the difficulties for consumers who are already metered, perhaps because they live in a house which was built after 1990—since 1990 rateable values have not been available—or who will in future move into a house which is metered. Those customers are not given the same choice as the occupants, for instance, of houses built before 1990.
Again, I seek some equality. The argument has been advanced that the presence of a meter would be known to a purchaser of a house. Indeed that is so. But I cannot believe that that would be the factor which sways a decision about whether or not to buy a house. The known presence of a meter does not in itself make it appropriate to deny choice to that consumer. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before the Minister replies to the noble Baroness's points, I wish to make a brief remark on Amendment No. 10. Can the Minister comment on the practicality of having a meter in every flat, for example, in a terraced house? I am not sure how that would work. I shall be pleased to hear his comments.
Lord Whitty: As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are now in the area of consumer choice. The intentions, although in some cases not the effects, of the noble Baroness's amendment is to extend that further. However, before I address the amendment I remind the Committee that the Bill already represents a substantial increase in consumer choice. At present consumers have few rights over the basis on which they are charged. As the law stands, there is no statutory choice. The basis of charging is up to the undertaker. The Bill presents a major step forward in consumer choice, albeit not unlimited. Increased consumer choice is one of the objectives of the Bill. It means that we give customers the option of a measured as well as an unmeasured charge where we can.
However, some of the implications of the noble Baroness's amendments would restrict consumer choice and the benefits of making metering more generally available. For example, dropping the free provision of a water meter would restrict many customers' choice. My department receives a significant amount of correspondence from many people who would like themselves to have a meter fitted. They believe that they would benefit from having a meter fitted. The environmental and water usage would benefit. But they

1255
cannot afford the upfront cost of perhaps £200 or £150. Single pensioners and many others cannot therefore gain the benefit of a meter being installed. Our analysis suggests that up to 54 per cent of all people on benefits would have lower water bills if they pay on a measured basis. Yet many of them are put off by the £150 or so charge.
It is true that meters are not the only way to reduce consumption, but they are important. One of the arguments used against the provision of free meters by the noble Baroness is the passing on of costs to other consumers. It is important to recognise that we do not regard these costs as unmanageable if spread across the range of consumers. Under the present regulations, around half of all water companies already offer a free meter option. There are the additional costs of ensuring that all customers, rather than just those who live in an area served by a water company which already provides a free meter option, have a real choice to pay on the basis of volume. The total numbers are not expected to be excessive. Therefore, spread across other water company users the cost is not enormous.
The director-general estimated in Prospects for Prices that the cost of all metering over the next five years would be £300 million. That is small in comparison with the total turnover of the water industry and its commitment on environmental and other fronts.
Water companies will not be expected to fit meters where it would be unreasonably expensive or impractical to do so. The example of a terraced house, broken up into several flats, could in certain circumstances mean that it would be unreasonable, too expensive, or too technically awkward to do so. In such cases, in order to meet some degree of consumer choice, companies will be able to offer customers an alternative basis of charging such as an assessed measured charge.
Amendment No. 12 again cuts across the desire of the noble Baroness to give greater customer choice. If one combines the effects, Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 make it more difficult and more expensive to choose metering. It is simplistic to say that a programme of metering should not be allowed unless the cost of switching to measured charging falls only on those customers who make the switch. It is a complex area. It is the responsibility of the regulator. I shall make a brief attempt to explain how the cost effects work so far as I understand them.
There are typically two adjustments in a balance between measured or metered charges and the unmetered charges so as to ensure that there is a fair distribution of charges between those groups. First, customers who choose to be metered tend to use less water than unmetered customers. The costs of metering are charged to those metered customers alone so that a customer with an average consumption will pay slightly more to be metered than to pay on an unmeasured basis. Companies make an adjustment to the unmeasured tariff to prevent that differential becoming so great that metered customers are in effect subsidising unmetered customers. Ofwat specified that it believes that the difference should be no more than £29 per customer with average consumption. That may mean an increase
1256
in average unmeasured bills to ensure an appropriate differential is maintained between measured and unmeasured charges.
The second and smaller adjustment is to take account of a change in the average rateable value of those properties remaining on an unmeasured charge. Where consumers in higher rateable value properties switch to a meter there will be a fall in the average rateable value for unmeasured properties. That requires some increase in tariff to ensure that the company receives the same average income. Therefore, an adjustment in the opposite direction is made in the circumstances where there is a preponderance of occupiers of smaller value properties.
The regulator is ensuring that the charge paid by those remaining on an unmeasured basis is reflecting more and more closely the average consumption characteristics of the group concerned.
Those adjustments are made on the basis of equity. These amendments are not an alternative to those adjustments. Quite apart from the new consumer rights under the Bill, switching to meters is already running at the rate of about 3 to 4 per cent annually. That is causing these rebalancing effects on the bill under the procedures outlined by the regulator. The precise distributional effects of the new customers' rights under the Bill, as well as the switch that is already taking place, will depend on how a director-general chooses to set the totality of a tariff basket. I am sure the director-general will want to work with the water companies to ensure that these new rights are introduced in a fair way.
It must be understood that every individual choice that allows a customer to minimise his or her charges, whether to go for measured charges or in the opposite direction and whether they benefit from a special tariff or a special charge for vulnerable groups, results in some loss of revenue to the water companies—revenue that must in some sense be recovered from the rest of its customers. It is no good saying that a customer saving should not fall on any other customer unless one denies everyone the chance to make any choice. That is why the Government have supported a balanced approach and why they believe that some of these adjustments have to be made.
I believe that in recognising that, this Bill delivers an important package of new consumer protection as well as greater consumer choice. I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 would improve that situation; indeed, there is a danger that they would do precisely the opposite in terms of consumer choice.
Amendment No. 14 proposes to go further than the choices offered in this Bill. It would allow customers to move in and out of measured charges at any time. I assume that that fits with the logic that they would have had to pay for that because there would be no free metering. We have made it clear that we want to increase customer choice. We have spoken about the importance of ensuring that the charging system provides enough water to everyone for their essential needs at a fair and affordable price.

1257
However, it is not just a question of customer needs. We also have to recognise the needs of the industry. In order to function efficiently, the industry has to have some revenue stability. That is important for the forward planning of the industry and for the environmental and capital investment which we are expecting to see from it.
It is not only the water company that needs that stability. It is also important that consumers know broadly what they will be expected to pay for their water. If large numbers of customers were allowed to revert to unmeasured charges at any time, a significant amount of stability would be removed. Presumably such customers would only do so if they were convinced that their bills would thereby fall, and that could mean charges rising very sharply for those customers who had not changed either the pattern of their use of water or their charging system. It does not seem sensible to allow a system of constant shifting of forms of charging which would cause that degree of instability to other customers.
Amendment No. 21 offers the prospect of continuing to opt in and out of measured and unmeasured charging from the same premises (theoretically, at least) over and over again for the indefinite future. I have already indicated the problems that could arise from a very high incidence of switching between measured and unmeasured charging. The noble Baroness and noble Lords will recognise that there has to be some restriction on the customer's right to choose where that would have a knock-on effect on the total pricing and charging system. Amendment No. 21 apparently invites us to open up even greater opportunities for customers to choose an unmeasured basis—in other words, to move in that direction. We believe that a responsible policy must strike a balance between consumer choice, stability of income for the water companies and stability which enables customers to understand the pricing.
I hope that the noble Baroness will see from what I have said that the amendments may well not achieve the intention that lies behind them, but in any case other considerations besides the simple maximisation of consumer choice must be taken into account. I underline the fact that this Bill greatly increases consumer choice, but there is a limit.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My noble friend did not seem to respond wholly adequately, if I may say so, to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, from the Opposition Front Bench on the question of putting meters into premises in multiple occupation. I understand what he said in so far as he said that if it were unreasonable not to do so, it would not be done. Could he explain exactly who would decide what was reasonable or not reasonable and whether those in such premises would be consulted on any decision?
Lord Whitty: It depends in the first circumstance on who is requesting the metering. It could be the landlord; it could be individual customers; or it could be a group of customers, some of whom want a different system. Sometimes the landlord will be paying the bill,
1258
sometimes the individual tenants, so it is not quite as straightforward as all that. In the case of a terraced house—the noble Baroness raised this example—or a block of flats, it might not be practical from the company's point of view to fit meters in every flat even if the landlord or the tenants wanted that, particularly if they had a shared water supply. That is why, when faced with a request for a different system, we are giving the power to companies to offer customers in those circumstances an alternative to metered charging; that is, being charged on the basis of an assessed measured charge based, broadly speaking, on the average of metered charges for similar properties in the area.
As far as the potential for conflict is concerned—my noble friend envisaged such conflict in the circumstances, and I accept that it might well arise—there are provisions for disputes over whether metering is practical. If they cannot be settled, those disputes will have to be referred to the director general.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder whether the Minister is prepared to comment further on Amendment No. 14. He dealt with it on the basis (which is entirely fair because that is the way the amendment is drawn) that the ability to give another notice would be entirely unlimited. I said that 12 months may be too short. The Minister will readily appreciate that I may be tempted, at Report stage, to suggest a period of two years. If it would be helpful to look at that now it might save us a little time. One of the points I made was that if the trial period were exactly a year, there would not be a full year's bills for the customer to compare and on which to base a judgment.
Lord Whitty: I did not comment on the particular provision because the clause as drafted obviously leaves it completely open-ended. We would not want a general provision which gave at any future time the ability to revert. Indeed, in new premises there is no other basis for charging than metering. As a general right, therefore, we could not accept such a provision, whatever the figure or date the noble Baroness suggested.
Baroness Hamwee: I am not quite sure that I understand that, but I shall read what the Minister has said, as indeed I shall with regard to Amendment No. 12 which he said was very detailed. He will readily understand that I was not wholly serious in Amendment No. 10, but that I wanted to flush out, if that is not an inappropriate expression, comments on the real cost of the exercise.
The Minister suggested that my amendments restrict choice. I do not agree with him on that. What I particularly do not accept is that one should necessarily read all amendments in a group together. We happily do not have a procedure which takes one amendment at one stage and another amendment at another stage so that by the time we have got through 25 amendments we have had 25 stages of the Bill. In order to raise a variety of aspects, one has to table a variety of amendments, so I do not think I want to let the Minister get away with that. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
("(2A) In determining the period within which effect must be given to a measured charges notice under its charges scheme in accordance with subsection (2) above, a water undertaker shall be entitled to take into account—

(a) the environmental impact of furnishing the supply of water in question; and

(b) the cost to it of providing and installing the meter in question,

taking into account the cost to it of complying with all the other measured charges notices that have been or may be given to it.")
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 11 seeks to ensure that the installation of free meters is taken forward in a way which might be more sensible and cost-effective than could be the position under the Bill. I believe that metering will only have a positive environmental effect if the industry can take a strategic approach. It may well be sensible for it to target specific geographical areas and specific types of property which will best deliver water savings and which relate to the water resources which are most stretched. The point is similar to that made on Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
It cannot be sensible to have a scatter-gun approach with an instant or almost immediate response to each customer when requesting metering. That will not be in the interests of the industry and therefore of customers. Companies must have investment programmes with wider considerations. The Minister referred to environmental obligations and managing resources and I am concerned that there is an element of chance which will skew the different works programmes of the different undertakers. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment would give companies considerable freedom in how long they can take to install meters when issued with a measured charges notice. I should like to start by assuring the Committee that we do not wish to be unduly restrictive on the timescales in which companies must install meters. To demand that a measured charges notice must be complied with within, say, a month in a large company would be in the best interests of neither water company nor consumer, since it would be unlikely to be the most cost-effective way of carrying out a meter fitting programme; and there may be particular environmental benefits to be gained from giving priority to metering customers in areas with fewer water resources.
However, as was explained earlier, one of the main aims of the Bill is to increase customer choice, providing those customers who wish to pay on a measured basis with a real choice on whether to do so. I am concerned that this right would be eroded with this amendment. Water companies would have scope—perhaps too much scope—to leave considerable gaps between the receipt of a measured charges notice and fitting a meter, perhaps even several years, provided that they could justify this with reference to water resources or costs. This could substantially erode the rights conferred under the Bill.
1260
Furthermore, the amendment does not address the needs of less well-off consumers, many of whom could make savings from having a water meter, and for whom the savings could be particularly important. In any meter fitting programme we would expect to see priority being given to such customers.
This, however, does not mean that we do not take seriously concerns about cost effectiveness and environmental benefits. We have no intention of enforcing a blanket requirement on water companies to fit all meters within exactly the same timescale. But, at the same time, consumers should not be expected to have to wait for very long periods of time for their meters to be fitted. There is scope for that guidance on the timescales for meter fitting to be included in the Secretary of State's guidance to the director general on his function of approving charges schemes. We would not envisage such guidance to be overly prescriptive and it would, of course, leave scope for local flexibility, with the director general approving the precise arrangements. We believe that this approach offers more protection to customers than allowing timescales to be decided solely by water companies, while allowing companies to ensure that their programmes are as effective as possible.
I should point out that water companies will not have to fit meters where to do so would be unduly impractical or expensive. In these cases, we propose that they will have to offer customers an alternative basis of charging; for instance, an assessed measured charge.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of costs. The Director General of Water Services has indicated in Prospects for Prices that in the five years from 2000 to 2005, £300 million would be allowed for the capital costs for optional and selected metering across England and Wales. This includes the metering which the companies were already programming in the absence of Government policy on this issue. At present, 3 per cent of customers across England and Wales are switching to meters each year, and that number is growing. The cost is small in comparison with the £8 to £8.5 billion environmental programme which we want to see delivered and which will still allow significant reductions in the average bill in 2000. We do not believe that the water companies will be faced with an unmanageable task.
I hope that I have now made clearer our intentions in this area and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: There is not a great deal between us and the Minister and I shall read her reply carefully. We do not seriously suggest total freedom; we were seeking a common sense approach. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("In either of those cases, the undertaker may instead fix charges in respect of those premises on the basis of average consumption of water in premises of comparable size.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment designed to clear up an omission from subsection (3). That subsection relieves the water suppliers from the obligation to install a meter at the request of a customer in two specific instances; if it is not reasonably practical to do so or if it would involve the supplier in unreasonable expense.
A practical example might be a block of flats in which only some of the tenants want meters, but the layout of the pipes means that all have to be fitted or none. Unreasonable expense might be when extensive infrastructure work was required to comply with a request for a meter.
It is not for us to have to discuss the theoretical instances when these two exemptions which we are giving to the water undertakers would operate. If a supplier wants to rely on either exemption in a given case, the onus of proof will be on him, with a right of appeal to the director general if the customer is aggrieved. However, the clause does not specify how the water should be charged under the new regime.
All parties agree that the old system based on rateable values is no longer viable and will become even more unsuitable as time goes by. In any case, it is the rateable value of charging from which the customer will be trying to escape by electing for a meter. The Government have accepted the fact that we ourselves would have introduced a Bill similar to this one and we, too, would have been faced with the problem of dealing with cases where rateable values were not an appropriate basis for charges, or where a figure for the rateable value was not available.
This amendment provides for the charges to be fixed by comparison with similar cases where an undisputed level of charges can be calculated. It will, of course, be up to the director general to instruct the suppliers as to how they are to make their comparisons and which factors are to be included and which are to be excluded. For example, it may be that different considerations apply between different areas. The customer who is aggrieved by the calculation will still have a right to appeal to the director general and the onus of proving that comparisons are fair, reasonable and relevant to the particular case will still rest on the supplier.
During the Second Reading in the other place, when discussing a different aspect of the Bill, the Minister of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions stated that groups of vulnerable people should be given the option of a bill based on an average measured supply. During the Committee stage in the other place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions repeated that in certain hardship cases the charges should be based on average measured consumption.
If, in some instances, the Government agree that average and comparable consumption is a fair and reasonable way of charging the customer, then that is an established principle. That principle should be extended to cases where a customer wants to have a meter supplied but the water company establishes that it is not practical or economically possible to comply with his request.
It is not right that if either of the exemptions applies, the customer should be penalised. As I said, this amendment merely tidies up an omission from the Bill in its present form. I trust that following the precedent already established in the other place, the Minister will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: We touched on those circumstances when discussing the previous two amendments. It is clearly the Government's intention that, where it is not practical or economic to set up a separate meter, there should be an alternative basis of charging.
We have indicated in another place and elsewhere that some concept of average, measured comparable usage would probably be appropriate. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness's amendment does not allow the water companies any flexibility in those circumstances. The protection that we have offered and which can be delivered through the mechanism which we propose by Clause 4 is that the director general will approve the companies' charging schemes and, therefore, he will be responsible for checking the fairness and equity of a charging scheme which provided an option in those circumstances. The flexibility would allow options to include charges based on average consumption across the board, an assessed consumption based on the number of occupants in the premises or, as the noble Baroness's amendment indicates, an assessed consumption based on the size of the property.
Different forms of charging may be appropriate in different circumstances and different types of premises and areas. Provided that the director general's responsibility for the equity of the charging scheme is preserved, as it would be under our measures, there would be no need to be prescriptive on the face of the Bill as to how the precise form of charging would be assessed. The noble Baroness can rest assured that it is our intention to avoid the inequity which has been identified in those circumstances. We intend to provide the alternative assessment option to the customer.
Therefore, I support the principle, but I do not believe that there is a need for us to be too prescriptive. Other mechanisms are in place to ensure that an alternative is available.
Baroness Seccombe: I should prefer to see a little more clarity on the face of the Bill. However, I shall read with care the Minister's reply and at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
("(7A) In any case where—

(a) the premises had been let for residential purposes for a term not exceeding 21 years, whether commencing before or after the commencement of this Act,

(b) the lessee for the time being had given a measured charges notice to the undertaker without the express written consent of the lessor for the time being, and

(c) the premises have reverted to the original lessor or his successor in title, whether upon the expiry of the term, or upon forfeiture or abandonment or disclaimer or surrender of the lease or by any other means, the consumer (here meaning the original lessor or his successor in title or, if the premises have been re-let, any new lessee of the premises) may within 12 months of the premises reverting to the original lessor or his successor in title, give a notice to the water undertaker revoking the measured charges notice.")

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. The latter amendment is entirely consequential on the main amendment which seeks to insert a new subsection. The main amendment is a non-controversial drafting amendment to clear up an anomaly to which I drew attention on Second Reading. I expressed the hope that the Government would correct it at this stage but they have not tabled their own amendment, hence this amendment.
Clause 6(5) provides that a consumer can, within 12 months, revoke the measured charge notice and revert to being charged on the basis of the rateable value. It emerged in debate in Committee in the other place that a new purchaser of a house with a volume-charging system which had been in operation for more than 12 months was stuck with that system, whether he liked it or not. Everyone agreed that that was fair enough on the basis of caveat emptor. A purchaser would be able to find out what the charging situation was before he signed a contract. If he did not like it, he would be able to withdraw from the negotiations. In the case of leasehold homes, Clause 11 expressly forbids a landlord from preventing his tenant choosing to have a metered supply if that suited him. As that would be in cases where the tenant was paying an exclusive rent and was responsible for the water bill, that too seems eminently reasonable.
We now come to the anomaly which I invite the Committee to correct with, it is hoped, the Government's co-operation. However, first, I remind the Committee of a declaration of a minor interest which I made on Second Reading. I am the part-owner of two rented residential properties. A family company, of which I am a shareholder, owns another two such properties. I take no part in their management and my adviser tells me that it is a matter of complete indifference whether the tenants do or do not decide whether to have water meters.
The anomaly arises if a tenant exercises his right, under Clause 11 to have a water meter and then 12 or more months later, the tenancy comes to an end. As the Bill now stands, the landlord must keep the meter even if it is not in his interest to do so. He may, for example,
1264
be an expatriate worker who is returning home after a couple of years abroad. The tenant may have enjoyed a tenancy which had continued for several years. The needs of the outgoing tenant may be quite different from those of the landlord or the successor tenant.
My amendment merely permits the landlord, under what is called a "short tenancy", which I have defined as being less than 21 years, to cancel the measured charge notice within 12 months of the premises reverting to him. Some Members of the Committee may find it strange for a lease originally for a term of up to 21 years to be described as "short". However, in the world of the law of landlord and tenant, particularly in the case of residential property, I understand that 21 years is regarded as a demarcation line.
In reality, I imagine that most purely residential leases, other than flats on very long leases at ground rents, are for very much shorter terms than that. The amendment does not apply where a landlord has expressly consented to a meter because it would clearly be unreasonable for a landlord to resile from it after the initial 12 months from when it was installed. It applies only when the meter is installed without his consent and when it has, in effect, been imposed upon him.
Quite rightly, the general law does not permit a tenant to prejudice his landlord's interest in the property by accepting some burden that extends beyond the terms of the lease. He cannot, for example, grant a sublease for longer than his own term. He cannot grant a right of way or a right of light. So there is no reason why a tenant should be able to saddle his landlord with an unwanted meter.
It may be argued that it would somehow be onerous on the supplier for the meter to be cancelled after the initial 12 months or if a landlord who had exercised that right then let the property to a new tenant who, again, elected to have a meter. That is an entirely specious argument. There is no question of the supplier having to rush back and forth, removing and then reinstalling a meter at the same premises. It would be simple commercial sense to leave the meter dormant and ignored on the premises rather than incurring the uneconomic expense of disconnecting and collecting it.
I believe that this uncomplicated amendment does not affect in any way the principles of the Bill. It does not prejudice the consumer; nor does it prejudice the supplier. It simply protects the landlord from having his long-term property rights being prejudiced permanently by the action of someone with only a short-term, transient interest in the property. That would be quite inequitable. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These amendments deal with a particular sector. Some of the general points which I made to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, apply also in this regard. In this case, if we accepted these amendments, water companies would have to accept a notice of reversion from subsequent tenants or property owners into whose property a meter had been installed at the instigation of a tenant without the express permission of the landlord, even when that may have occurred more than 20 years before.

1265
I have remarked on the general provision of being able to revert at any time, but giving rights of reversion to subsequent tenants or to property owners who were not involved in the original request opens up the prospect of opting in and out of measured and unmeasured charging for the same premises over and over again, potentially for an indefinite period.
I made my views clear on how that would apply to the generality of consumers when debating the earlier group of amendments. Potentially, there would not only be administrative costs, but unconstrained switching could cause uncertainty for the industry and changes in prices for the generality of consumers who would normally expect to know what they would have to pay for their water.
To that extent, each successive tenant could exercise the right to minimise his or her own bill—in either direction, depending on water usage—so the diminished revenue would have to be made up from the general customer base and overall charges would have to rise. That would arise from any switching but, through unconstrained switching, would be dramatic.
For that reason, we consider that the provisions in the Bill provide a balanced approach, substantially extending consumer choice, but also maintaining some degree of certainty for both consumers and companies.
In a landlord/tenant relationship, it does not seem to me that the general point has any less validity. There is no reason for treating different forms of tenures in different ways. The right to demand a meter, or to change the basis of charging, accrues to the person who pays the bill, irrespective of any other status. When the landlord takes on the role of consumer and pays the bill, tenants do not have any direct responsibility for the water bill, although it may be included in their rent, but the landlord will decide whether or not to have a meter and the consequences that flow from that. However, if the tenant has direct liability for the water charges, subject to certain practicalities, it is a matter between the tenant and the water undertaker.
Therefore, we consider that the same regime should apply in tenanted premises as it does in owner-occupied premises. I hope that in relation to the general point—in relation to the effect that it would have on the charging structure in general and in relation to the lack of clear reason for treating tenanted premises differently—the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have been glued to this discussion on Clause 6, but, of course, silently. However, the Minister may not have considered one particular point: the change of use of a dwelling. My noble friend Lady Miller spoke about a property in which she has a partial interest, which I understand is divided into two maisonettes. It may be that the owner of the property—in her particular case I suppose that it would be the property company, but in other circumstances it may be a private owner of a property—may decide to amalgamate the two maisonettes into a single dwelling. What then is the position of the person who occupies that property, either as a tenant or, if the property is sold, as the new owner, in
1266
relation to what the noble Lord described as "switching"? He was talking about unrestrained switching, but I believe that in this case it would be rational switching. What is the attitude of the noble Lord to that particular situation?
Lord Whitty: If it is an unmeasured charge, of course, that will be a major change to the building and, therefore, that will be reflected in the charging system in any case. If one part of the building is metered and the other part is not, it would be a matter for the new landlord, if he is paying the bill, whether a measured charge is opted for or not. If a measured charge is already established in such premises, in normal circumstances the measured charge would prevail. There may be other circumstances in which there is a more dramatic change of use—what is technically a "change of use" as distinct from a merger of dwellings—and that may involve a change in the charging regime. However, in a straightforward case, when two flats are knocked into one, it would be a matter between the landlord, if he were paying the bill, and the water undertaker.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister is always extremely courteous. I shall certainly give him the courtesy of reading carefully what he has said. However, having listened to him, I feel that I do not agree with anything he has said. I want to be sure of my understanding of what he has said and to ensure that I do not find a different view when I read it.
With regard to the last line of the amendment, I believe that if the clause stands as it is, and my amendment is not accepted, the position would be still inequitable. The Minister has not addressed the position of the normal rules of landlord and tenant; that a tenant cannot change a property beyond the length of the lease. That has never been the case before in English law, but this clause would allow that.
If someone were to go abroad for 18 months for work and he let his apartment while he was away, the tenant would have the right to put in a meter—perhaps because he has only one child and it is convenient for him—but the landlord would have no say in it whatsoever. However, the landlord may have three or four children and would not want to have to pay his water bills on a volume charge when he returns. As the landlord has no say whatsoever—that is agreed; fair enough, in my view—it is inappropriate that this clause should extend the right of the tenant beyond the length of the tenancy against the wishes of the landlord. As I said, at this stage I shall do no more than read carefully what has been said. I ask the Minister to take another look at this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 28, leave out ("that")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to allow companies to install meters for measuring waste water discharges from premises where that is deemed to be appropriate. Water companies are concerned that where water is charged for on a measured basis, the effect

1267
of Clause 6 would be that the sewerage charges would have to be related to the amount of water consumed. Of course, charges schemes already contain provisions to that effect, but they also allow for the decoupling of the measured water charge and the measured sewerage charge where there is no relationship between the two—that is the crux of the matter—for example, where water is supplied from a private source but the foul water is discharged into public facilities. Water companies can, of course, separately meter sewage discharges. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would remove the direct link that currently exists between the volume of water paid for by customers paying on a measured basis and their sewerage bill. I understand that the argument behind the amendment is that the undertakers may not wish to be tied, when charging with reference to volume, to the volume of water supplied to the householder. That may be because the householder has an alternative water supply, for example, a well.
Water companies' existing charges schemes provide that, where a consumer pays for their water on the basis of volume, their sewerage charge will be based on the volume of water consumed, usually less 5 or 10 per cent for personal consumption. The provision in the Bill is, therefore, consistent with current charges schemes. The Bill would give stability to customers, who would be clear about the method by which the foul water element of their sewerage charge would be calculated.
If there are a small number of properties—involving very small sums—in this situation, it is unlikely to be cost-effective for the water company to provide sewerage meters as an alternative way of assessing measured waste water charges. However, I would be prepared to look more closely at the proposition if the noble Lord were able to provide evidence that that was a significant problem which required such action. As I indicated earlier, based on companies' current charges schemes, we are unable to conclude that that is the case. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Addington: That answer raises the question of what is a significant number. That depends probably on where one is standing. If one happens to be one of the few people concerned, I am sure that it is a significant number. But having heard the Minister's reply and the fact that the Government are leaving the door slightly ajar, even though they are threatening to slam it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Restriction on change in basis of charging]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 4, leave out ("either")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. These amendments are in fact probing amendments.
1268
Amendment No. 18 is purely a paving amendment leading to Amendment No. 19, which is the insertion of a new paragraph (c) to Clause 7(2).
As at present drafted, subsection (2) prohibits an undertaker from installing a meter unless the consumer has requested it, or has consented to it, or unless there has been a change in the occupation of the premises and the new occupier has not yet received a bill based on a non-metered basis.
There is one other set of circumstances where the continuation of an unmetered charge would be inappropriate because a continuation of the use of the rateable value would itself be inappropriate. This is in cases where the premises have been so substantially altered that the rateable value should have and would have been increased but for the repeal of Part V of the General Rate Act 1967.
Since rateable values were last set in the late 1970s, many properties, especially houses, have been substantially modified. Extensions and garages have been built; attics have been converted into extra rooms, and so forth. In many cases—indeed most cases—the ever-vigilant district surveyor will have caught up with the owner of the property and the rateable value will have been increased, thereby triggering an increase in the water rates. But in cases where the rateable value has not yet been increased, and in future cases where there are substantial alterations to a property, the owner could be paying an unduly low water bill because the rateable value does not reflect the enhancement of the property.
The addition to subsection (2) removes that anomaly by allowing the supplier to switch to a metered supply. It is only logical that if a newly built property is automatically to have its supply metered under the terms of this Act, then what to all intents and purposes is a newly converted or substantially altered property should be dealt with in the same way. It is also consistent with the Government's acknowledgement that eventually all properties will be on a metered charge basis, as was made clear by the Minister for the Environment during the Committee stage in the other place when subsection 2(b) was debated at some length.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that persons whose properties have increased in value because of substantial alterations do not pay disproportionately low water charges because there is no longer any machinery to increase their rateable value. That casts an unfair burden on the other customers.
Amendment No. 20 provides for disputes under this clause to be referred to the director under the appeals procedure set up by Section 30A. Of course disputes can arise, especially when the water company may say that it has discovered that a substantial alteration has been made to the property which would have resulted in an increase in the rateable value, and doubtless the owner will want to argue that the alteration is so insignificant that there would have been no increase.
How big is "substantial"? I do not believe we have to trouble ourselves too much with trying to define how big substantial is; the director can puzzle that one out. That is part of his job. As I said earlier in my remarks,

1269
this amendment seeks to draw attention to that anomaly. If this group of amendments is not acceptable to the Government, perhaps the Minister will not only tell the Committee why not, but also tell us what alternative solution they have to resolve this specific problem. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As I have said before, we are concerned to give customers who currently pay an unmeasured charge the right to continue to pay on that basis except in certain circumstances to be set out in regulations under Section 144B (1)(c). We shall consult on the detail of the regulations in due course but it may be helpful if I repeat the indication we have given previously of the premises for which we consider water companies should be able to require measured charges. Those are premises which are used for commercial purposes; those where a garden sprinkler is used; those with a swimming pool; those where a power shower consuming more than 20 litres per minute is used, and those where a water softening unit is used which requires back washing.
This would be an enabling power. Nothing in the Bill places an obligation on water companies to impose meters in any cases. Where water companies want to identify customers using water for discretionary purposes, we look to them to do so without taking an approach which is unduly intrusive. A number of other circumstances where companies should be able to impose meters have been suggested to us, including those in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
During the debate at Second Reading I explained the Government's aims for this Bill. One of the key aims is to promote greater customer choice in the basis of water charging. This amendment would be contrary to that spirit. It would be perfectly possible under this amendment impose a meter on someone whose home had been altered many years previously.
Many people would believe that that is unfair. Indeed, we have already received many letters supporting that view from people who are having meters imposed on them for making, in many cases, relatively minor changes to their home. They do not believe, and I agree with them, that simply because they added a garage to their house or a playroom for their children, that their water consumption will increase. From personal experience, if it is provision for young teenage sons over the garage, as they move further away from the bathroom the water consumption may go down.
Of course, there may be situations where altering a property does increase water use; for example, if extra bedrooms are added so that more people can live there. We do not wish water companies to be tied to outdated rateable values in those situations. We believe that the fairest system is to allow water companies to update their charges without taking away customer choice.
Under the Bill as it stands, water companies would be able to start charging people who had altered their property such that the original rateable value was significantly out of date on an alternative unmeasured
1270
basis of charging, provided it is set out in their charging scheme. Companies would be free to use licence fees or assessed rateable values, as indeed some companies do already. Companies would, of course, be able to require meters for extended properties where the household is using water for purposes prescribed in the regulations under Section 144B (1)(c), as I mentioned earlier, such as sprinklers.
We believe that this amendment would drive a coach and horses through the right for people to remain on an unmeasured charge in their current home and hope therefore that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I did say that these were probing amendments. I shall certainly take them away and think about the Minister's answer. I bog leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Charging by reference to rateable value]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 28, at end insert ("during the period beginning 1st April 2000 and ending 31st March 2005")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 22 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. These are amendments to Clause 8 of the Bill which, though it is buried in the middle of the Bill, is in a sense the most important provision in the Bill. It is the clause which prompts the bringing forward of the Bill at this time and indicates the urgency of the situation; that is, that under the 1991 Act reference to rateable value is not to have effect after March of next year.
Clause 8 provides that Section 145 of the 1991 Act shall cease to have effect altogether. The first amendment in this group proposes that the reference to the year 2000 be moved on for five years rather than being taken off the statute book. Although there is no alternative to extending the use of rateable values, which are based on notional rental values, they increasingly lack any basis in fact. No general revaluation has been carried out since the early 1970s and there is concern that those issued since then are out of step with those issued previously.
I do not seek to knock the system which was effective in its day, but I suggest that rateable values are obsolete and that, on grounds of logic and fairness, should not be allowed to be used indefinitely. As we have already discussed this afternoon, no rateable values have been issued at all by the Inland Revenue since 1990. Therefore, in this amendment I am seeking to encourage the development of an alternative basis for unmeasured charges within a period of five years. Of course, I am open to negotiation to extending that period a little, but I seek to put a period on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 23 proposes that district valuation offices of the Inland Revenue shall, when requested, give occupiers the rateable values for dwelling houses,
"of which no value currently appears on the valuation list".

1271
Occupiers of houses built since 1990 for which there is no rateable value have, as has been said, no choice as to how they pay for their water. This amendment seeks to extend fairness and equality to such occupiers and to apply choice. I take the point made by the Minister previously, that the Bill cannot be only about choice and that there are a number of other factors to be balanced.
However, I should like to repeat the view put forward earlier that if one is thinking of buying a house built since 1990 and discovers that it is metered, that is not likely to be the factor that determines the decision about whether or not to go ahead with the purchase. If one buys a house knowing that it is metered, I do not believe that it means that one should be denied the choice simply because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, caveat emptor. I believe that a question of balance is involved.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 24, which refers to the possibility of charging by reference to council tax valuation bands. The amendment does not seek to introduce such a system but rather to introduce the possibility for it. It would enable undertakers to obtain information. Access to council tax bands could provide the industry with a comprehensive, readily available and quite cheap alternative method of charging. However, at present, council tax data is not available to companies that wish to have it. It is possible to find out the council tax for individual properties, but that means asking for such information property by property.
The report on the consultation to which I referred earlier says, at paragraph 23, that although,
"the Government will continue to consider proposals that come forward [that] does not rule out the possibility of releasing Council Tax data in the future if proposals are refined to address the difficulties inherent in any change".
I understand that those difficulties include sensitivities about the use of information collected for taxation purposes. I also understand that there would be a burden on local authorities as regards providing the information. Nevertheless, I tabled this amendment because it will enable me to ask the Minister whether, without such a provision, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to ensure that undertakers have access to this sort of information so that they can make the judgments; and, indeed, so that the debate can go forward about an alternative system. In other words, can the Secretary of State do what I am seeking to allow him to do without my amendment appearing in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: These amendments deal with the consideration of rateable value. Amendment No. 22 would delete the deadline of the year 2000 as set out in the Bill, and replace it with the year 2005. By resisting this amendment the Government are not saying that we have a preference for the rateable value system for unmeasured charges, or indeed, any other system. By deleting the reference to the year 2000 we are not indicating that rateable value should be the only or the main way forward in the longer term.
1272
We are prepared for water companies to introduce other forms of charging, including as the noble Baroness would seem to prefer, charges based on council tax bands. However, we would not wish to rush into anything approaching a mandatory system or a requirement whereby such unmeasured charges would be based on council taxes. The effects of that on individual consumers would be differential and it would not necessarily be desirable either to customers or supplying companies.
We believe that we need to retain a range of measures for unmeasured charges, which would include rateable value, taking into account the problems that have been recognised. At present, it is still the case that the vast majority of households pay a charge which is based on the rateable value of the property. We have no objections to different forms of calculation; indeed, we are encouraging the water companies and others to come forward with such alternatives. However, to cast in stone a date by which time water companies must find a replacement system does not seem to us to be a sensible way forward. We want to retain as much flexibility as possible and a new arbitrary deadline would not help.
As I said, that does not mean that we are inherently hostile to the use of council tax bands as the basis for unmeasured charges. Clearly we want to explore, and encourage others to explore, the possibilities in that respect.
Amendment No. 24 relates to the information that water companies would use if they wanted to examine the possibility of going down the council tax-based road. The noble Baroness's amendment would provide a system which, in many ways, parallels what the Government are proposing in any event. We do not believe that we need the amendment to deliver our policy. Indeed, the information on council tax bands is already public. It is simply a question, as the amendment recognises, of it being available in computer-readable form. However, as well as being available through individual local authorities, information on council tax banding is also held centrally by the Valuation Office in an electronic form.
As I said earlier, we are open to proposals for the use of council tax banding as a basis of charging. The amendment also seems to envisage that the Secretary of State should be able to make regulations empowering undertakers to charge on the basis of bands. That is unnecessary. The way in which we propose to proceed is to encourage companies to devise such schemes. When satisfied with the proposal of a particular company the data on banding would be made available and arrangements for using it as a basis for charging could be included in the company's charges scheme, along with any changes. There is already a power to give guidance and make regulations as to what may or may not be in a charges scheme. That power could be used to govern what would be acceptable in a council tax band based charges scheme. Therefore, we do not consider that Amendment No. 24 is necessary.
Amendment No. 23 addresses the situation where a property currently has no rateable value available for measured charging. This amendment would allow a

1273
notional rateable value to be drawn up. Of course, most properties built since 1990 and some others whose characteristics have changed over recent years do not have current or available rateable values. In practice, that is not in fact as great a constraint as might appear to be the case. In particular, there is no justification for saying that companies are forced to meter new properties by the absence of rateable values. Most companies meter new properties because they choose to do so and they are free to devise and propose unmeasured alternatives if they prefer.
Under the Bill as it stands, existing occupiers using water for normal purposes in existing homes will have a right to remain on an unmeasured basis of charging once they are on one, without needing the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. But because water companies have been fitting meters to new houses, most properties that do not have a rateable value are in practice already metered. As I read it, this amendment does not propose to give the occupier of a property that is already metered any right to be charged on the basis of rateable value. That seems a little illogical because, without that right, obtaining a notional rateable value would be of limited use.
In the future, as regards properties built after this Bill comes into force, companies might continue to be attracted to metering. If a home buyer particularly objects to metering, it is up to him not to buy a particular property. There are circumstances where new properties are subject to a different form of unmeasured charge. As we explore other possibilities in this context, including council tax bands, that provision may be more widely available. At least one company, Welsh Water, widely uses an unmeasured charge which is not based on rateable value for those properties where no rateable value is available and in circumstances where neither the company nor the occupier wishes to meter.
We do not think that creating a new range of notional rateable values—as Amendment No. 23 seeks to do—would in reality create any new rights for consumers. Water companies can already devise and propose what unmeasured bases of charging they wish. I hope that I have addressed most of the points raised by the noble Baroness's amendments. I hope that she will consider they are either unnecessary or do not achieve the point she seeks to make. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendments.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister says that Amendment No. 23 would not create a new right for consumers. However, the amendment is designed precisely to create a new right for consumers. However, it is perhaps one of the less important amendments in this group.
As regards Amendment No. 22, the Government are being open about not being great fans of using rateable value as a basis for charging. However, the Committee is well aware of the pressures on legislative time. It is a quite human response of any government, to address other matters if no time limit is in place and a system shows no sign of breaking down and has been examined
1274
in the past two or three years. I understand that position. I said that I was open to negotiation with regard to the time period involved. However, I should like to see some framework established in which the programme could move forward. That is the point of Amendment No. 22.
Amendment No. 24 may seem a detailed provision which does not directly address the point of this Bill. I am concerned to ensure that we do not miss the opportunity to allow companies fully to explore what other methods may be available to them. The Minister said that the relevant information is already in the public domain. My concern is that although that is the case it takes a great deal of effort, and therefore cost, to extract that information as one has to ask questions on a property-by-property basis. I assume that applies to information held by the valuation offices as well as to information held by local authorities.
I shall read the Minister's comments in Hansard. However, as regards making the relevant information available in the way I propose, I am not sure that the Secretary of State can undertake to do that at present, or whether that requires some legislative provision to be introduced. If such a legislative provision is required, we should introduce it in this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESELLING WATER SUPPLIED BY UNDERTAKER
(" .After subsection (5) of section 150 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (charging for services provided with the help of an undertaker), there is inserted—
"(6) An order under this section may—

(a) require any person who resells water supplied by a water undertaker to furnish the purchaser with such information as may be specified or described in the order; and

(b) provide that, in the event of his failing to do so, the maximum price applicable to the resale shall be such as may be specified in the order, or shall be reduced by such amount or such percentage as may be so specified."").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to provide certain information to people who live in rented accommodation or on a mobile home park and whose landlord has already purchased the water that they use. Ofwat wants more information to be supplied to such people to enable them to ensure that they are not being overcharged. Ofwat seeks the imposition of an order under Section 150 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to control the price charged for water supplied to customers of a water undertaker; that is, someone who resells the water to third parties. Although perhaps not common, this situation occurs, as I have already mentioned.
This kind of provision exists in other utilities regulation. Indeed, this entire formula has been lifted from Section 37 of the Gas Act 1986. All this

1275
amendment seeks to achieve is to ensure that the third party knows exactly how much his water initially cost. Thus he can take action if he is being overcharged for it. I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 26 in my name which is grouped with the amendment we are discussing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for explaining our concerns. I declare a non-financial interest in that I am the honorary secretary of the All-Party Group on the Welfare of Park Home Owners. The Minister's department will be aware that people who live in mobile homes are sometimes taken for a ride in the context we are discussing. The all-party group includes in its membership David Rendel, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock; Roger Gale and John Butterfill. We were delighted recently to persuade the Minister, Hilary Armstrong, to establish a ministerial group to examine the views of site owners, residents, local government officials and others who seek to improve the lot of the people we are discussing.
People consider mobile homes as being outwith the normal range of provision. However, there are more than 200,000 mobile homes throughout the country. At a modest estimate, that means half a million people. Often those people lose out in terms of the protection afforded to them in this regard. Most mobile home parks are well run and most of the residents are happy. But some site owners are very reluctant to play the game by their residents. I do not deny that it is a commercial business, but some owners take advantage.
When a water charge is to be met and, by agreement, it is shared by those who use the water, one would think that reasonable—it does not always happen—and one would think it reasonable that the site owner seeks to make a profit. However, it is not unreasonable that the individuals concerned should raise the issue. But it is a sad fact that many of the residents of mobile homes are elderly and vulnerable. They are disadvantaged in many ways. Sometimes they have difficulty in raising the issue with the owners of the sites. One solution would be for them to take the owners to court—of course they could, at a cost—but, with the increasing pressure on legal aid, they would have difficulty in finding the money to do so. I am talking about site owners who know that they are doing wrong—and persist in doing so—and the vulnerable individual is the one who suffers.
As my noble friend Lord Addington said, steps are being taken to remedy that. Ofwat is bringing in a remedy under Section 150 of the Water Industry Act and consultations are taking place. The gravamen of the amendment is to ask the Government whether they are aware of the problem and whether they have a better solution than the ones proposed. Is there a good reason why vulnerable, inarticulate and sometimes poor people should have to rely upon their own cash and the courts to seek redress? I do not believe that that is the case.
1276
Yesterday in the other place my good friend Hilton Dawson, the MP for Lancaster and Wyre, raised the issue of the need to address more seriously the problems of mobile home residents. The problem concerns others, but it particularly concerns those who buy mobile homes for retirement. They believe they have bought a piece of paradise—very often it is true—but sometimes it becomes a nightmare. I hope that the Minister recognises the problem and that the Government will try in any way they can to make it easier for people who live on mobile home sites to enjoy the same advantages as others. People who live in council flats and many other places are able to rely upon landlord and tenant legislation to protect them against harassment. A whole range of legislation protects them but it does not protect the mobile home owner.
I move this as a probing amendment. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. If it is a sympathetic answer I am prepared to consider not putting the amendment to the vote.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 25 proposes an addition to the powers of the Director General of Water Services when making a water resale order. The amendment would allow the order to force the disclosure of information by the person reselling water to the purchaser. This is a subject slightly outside the scope of the Government's water charging review and the other measures in the Bill, in which we have concentrated on the charges paid to water undertakers.
The use of the powers in Section 150 is, so far, untried. The director has recently proposed to make an order to limit resale prices and that has been widely welcomed. I welcome this proposal too. But my immediate reaction to the amendment is that it is surely premature to ask for an extension of powers to make an order before the existing power has been used even once. The Government would prefer first of all to take stock of how the order works within the present available powers. These already enable the director, as he is proposing, to limit water resale prices to the fair recovery of the sums paid by the reseller to the water undertaker. Once the order is in operation, if we were confronted with evidence that it was not entirely effective, then we would consider legislation or some other measure. But we would prefer not to accept an amendment that assumes that the presently proposed order will not be effective in forcing water resellers to charge only reasonable prices.
I turn to Amendment No. 26, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. I pay tribute to the work which he and those to whom he referred have done in support of the interests of those living in mobile homes. I am certainly aware that my honourable friend Hilton Dawson, with great justification, has taken up the matter. However, Amendment No. 26 would go even further in creating a criminal offence to enforce the terms of the resale order. This seems to be out of proportion to a problem that we do not yet know we have. I would point

1277
out that the director general's regulation of the water undertakers, including the setting of price limits, is not supported by criminal offences. I do not think it appropriate that criminal sanctions should apply to water resale either.
At the moment the Government are not persuaded that either amendment is necessary. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I accept with appreciation the Minister's sympathy for what we are seeking. I acknowledge that there has been no case history in the matter. We know the nature of some of the owners of mobile homes sites. We support the amendment because we fear that when the Bill comes into force it will lead to the kind of anomaly, misuse and disgrace we have spoken about. As my noble friend will know from her wide experience of local government, there are many people who remain silent rather than, as it were, cause trouble. If you have a bad site owner who does not care tuppence about upsetting people, then the situation I envisage will arise. I accept that this may not be the right occasion to pursue the matter. I think the Minister is saying that we need hard evidence in front of us. If the all party group provides evidence of wrongdoing, I am satisfied that that will be looked at.
Lord Addington: I have a question for the noble Baroness. How will the Government acquire the information? The amendment I propose—I accept it may not be exactly right—allows the ultimate consumers of the water to know what the intermediary is charged and what they are being charged. It is a way of gathering information. If people are being swindled they tend to talk about it and will report it. Even if they do not all report it, some will. If we do not have that means of information gathering, ultimately no form of legislation will ever be effective.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It will be effective through the power of the director to limit the resale prices.
Lord Addington: I do not think that has answered my question at all. I do not propose to take the amendment to a vote at this point. It is something we will have to come back to. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made a very powerful speech. If that was a gentle probe, I shudder to think what a thrust from him is like. The noble Lord is definitely my friend, although I think he made a mistake by referring to me as his noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Extension of power to carry out works in connection with metering]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
("() After subsection (9) there is inserted—
"(10) In this section, to "premises", "building" or "house" shall be taken as also being refereners to—

(a) any private dwellinghouse forming the whole or any part of any premises, building or house; and

(b) any premises, building or house excluding any private dwellinghouse forming part of such premises, building or house".").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 to Schedule 3. They are all minor technical amendments to the same effect and for similar purposes and can be simply explained.
The amendments all cover the situation of what may be described as "mixed" premises; that is to say, a building that is used both as someone's principal or only home and for business premises. Particular examples are: living accommodation forming part of a public house, a flat over a shop, or even the caretaker's flat in a commercial building.
Amendment No. 27 to Clause 10 is to ensure that in such mixed premises the water company will be able to provide a metered supply for the part of the building used for business purposes, irrespective of whether or not the occupier of the residential part opts for a meter. It also means that once the business premises are separately metered, the waiter supplier will not be prevented from disconnecting the business premises because the residential part of the building forms a kind of shield.
I need not take much of the Committee's time in explaining Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. They simply cover the technical problem of premises which have a mixed use—partly residential and partly business. We are all agreed that the residential part should have protection against disconnection. What needs to be avoided is a situation whereby the fact that part of the premises is residential prevents appropriate remedies being taken against the business premises. If, for example, the building were a public house or a restaurant with living accommodation over it, there could be a very substantial use of water for commercial purposes.
Amendment No. 35 is intended to ensure that in mixed premises the water company can require separate service pipes for the parts that are used for private purposes and those that are used for business purposes.
Amendment No. 36 follows from that. It seeks to make clear that the ban on disconnections which is provided for in the Bill, and which we support, does not extend to premises that are used both for business purposes and as a dwelling house, and where the water supply is used for business purposes. That would ensure that, for example, a public house could be cut off, even though the landlord lived on the premises. It does not cover the situation whereby someone lives over the shop

1279
and the water supply is used only for the residential accommodation and not for the business. That would still be protected from disconnection. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendments Nos. 27 and 35 appear to be intended to extend the powers that water companies already have to carry out work on customers' supply pipes, although the amendments as drafted actually add very little. At present, companies have the power to separate out supply pipes where they have given notice that they intend to install a meter in the relevant property. Under Clause 10, we are extending those powers to enable companies to carry out the necessary works to fit a meter.
The amendments, if the intention behind them is as I have outlined, would mean that water companies could go into anyone's home, whether or not the householder had requested that a meter be installed, and carry out works to separate supply pipes. They could even charge the householder for the work involved. That extension of powers is neither desirable nor necessary. We can see no reason why companies should be able to enter people's homes in order to carry out work that the customer neither wants nor needs doing.
Neither do we agree that the companies need such powers. They will already have sufficient powers to separate out supply pipes in order to fit meters, either where they are imposing a meter on someone who is using water—for instance, for filling a swimming-pool—where they may be entitled to charge according to volume in the future, or where the customer requests a meter.
We cannot accept that it is right to allow companies freedom to impose on their customers in that way, and then to charge for doing so; nor do we accept that companies need that power for the legitimate carrying out of their business. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 36 tabled by the noble Baroness, I spoke at Second Reading about the importance of the protection included in the Bill against disconnection for non-payment of bills. Our approach to protecting premises against disconnection has been to target it as far as possible, while ensuring that those whom we wish to protect are covered. I believe that the end result is a balanced approach, which protects potentially vulnerable people, and premises which play a vital role in the community, while not unnecessarily impeding water companies in the day-to-day carrying out of their business.
We therefore cannot agree with this amendment, which would seem to reduce the extent of protection currently included in the Bill. Perhaps I may explain why. The term, "private dwelling house" is not currently defined in the Bill because we believe that the use of the term alone suffices in describing those premises that are to be protected. It is our view that a private dwelling house cannot be one that is used predominantly for the carrying on of a business. However, we believe that it does cover people's homes where they may carry out
1280
some activity that is not purely private. For instance, it would cover homes where people work occasionally, as an alternative to their offices.
This amendment would remove the protection against disconnection for such premises. It would mean, for example, that a Minister taking home the Ministerial Box would not be covered, simply because the home was not being used solely for private purposes. Simply because someone is working at home in that way does not mean that that person is using water for purposes, or in amounts, that are any different from a home where the occupants do not take their work home with them or where they go out to work. I do not believe that that is within the spirit of the provisions to protect against disconnection to reduce protection in this way. I hope that I have convinced the noble Baroness sufficiently for her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am by no means sure that the Minister has convinced me. I shall not divide the Committee now, but I shall certainly take the matter away for consideration.
The Minister will know that I have withdrawn Amendment No. 28 to Clause 11 because I was advised that Clause 11 covers the situation to which my amendment related. However, the legal officer of the water company concerned does not consider that it is covered. In exactly the same way, the Minister feels that Clause 10 of the Bill already covers the situation, for example, of a public house; the legal officer does not consider that to be the case. I shall need to examine this matter carefully and take further advice as to whether the matter is or is not covered.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If it would help the noble Baroness to write to the department on that point and to receive an answer in writing for consideration, that can be arranged.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness. I shall accept her offer of a letter. There has been great concern about the position of public houses and so on. I shall make sure that a letter is drafted and sent to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Rights of tenants in relation to metering]:
[Amendment No. 28 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 12 [Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 21, leave out ("Consultative") and insert ("Consumer")
The noble Lord said: I am surprised to be standing at this Dispatch Box discussing a clause relating to water in Scotland. I say that because, in exactly a fortnight's time, the people of Scotland will elect a Parliament, which, from 1st July, will be entirely and totally

1281
responsible for these matters. I therefore find it as surprising in relation to this issue as I did in relation to health that the Government are choosing to put legislation through this Parliament which may not even come into force until after the Scottish Parliament has been elected or takes over these powers on 1st July. I should have thought that this matter could comfortably have been left to the Scottish Parliament for consideration. The water industry will be one of the important issues over which it will preside. I suspect that most people in Scotland have now made the assumption that all these matters will be dealt with in Edinburgh and that they are not paying much attention to legislation that is being tacked on to English Bills that are presently passing through both Houses of this Parliament.
I am grateful to the Scottish Consumers' Council for drawing to my attention some defects which it considers are in the Bill and to which it has asked me to speak. I am happy to do so because the council makes some good points. I know that the Minister has had notice of all of them, I make no complaint about that because even though I do not think we should be dealing with this, it is still incumbent on us to try to get it right. Then, when the Scottish Parliament takes over on 1st July it will take over issues which are in as good order as we can make them.
I shall therefore speak to Amendment No. 29 as well as Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 which are grouped with it. They are all to do with the consultative committees which the Government propose to set up to replace the current system in order to deal with consumer-related problems and issues, and to allow the consumer to have a voice. That is the first amendment.
The new structures are here supposedly to strengthen consumer representation. It is a little odd, therefore, that the title of each local committee is to be the "Water Industry Consultative Committee". I do not believe "consultative committee" sounds nearly as good as "consumer committee". "Consumer committee" sounds positive and proactive, whereas "consultative committee" gives a more negative message; that it only deals with any issues on which it is consulted by, I presume, the water authority or water industry commissioner. It will not be a body which represents the interests of the consumers and makes their points known to the water industry commissioner.
Amendment No. 30 refers to Schedule 2 and Part II of the Bill. It is an important amendment, probably the most important one. The current proposal is that for each of the consultative committees (which in my view should be called "consumer committees") the water industry commissioner for Scotland—I must get my tongue round that so that it trips off the tongue; at the moment I find it a rather heavy title—is to be the chairman of the body. Yet it is to the commissioner that the body will wish to make comments. Occasionally, the body may not agree with what the commissioner is doing, yet the commissioner is to be the chairman. Amendment No. 30 suggests that an independent chairman should be appointed by the Secretary of State.
I believe that consumer representation needs to be strengthened in the proposed structure. Frankly, I believe it should be no different from the independent consumer representations proposed for the privatised utilities. Economic regulation and consumer representation should be kept distinct. Experience in the privatised utilities has shown that there is a need for a strong independent consumer voice, and that would be difficult for a regulator to provide.
The Government seem to agree because in their response to A Fair Deal for Consumers, published in July 1998, the Government confirm that they intend,
"to establish consumer representative bodies on an independent statutory basis, responsible for pro-actively promoting and advocating the interests of all consumers … and will have an important role in representing the interests of disadvantaged consumers".
In the absence of a national consumer body on the subject of water, the local committees—the Government call them consultative, I should like to call there consumer—will have a central role in the articulation of consumer concerns. Appointing the commissioner as the chairman of all three committees in Scotland is likely to send out the wrong message as to the function of the committees. They will be perceived not to be genuinely independent, whereas an independent chairman with no connection to the regulatory body will be less likely to inhibit the development of a genuinely independent consumer voice.
The functions of the commissioner as the economic regulator will involve him or her in striking a balance between the interests of the consumers, on the one hand, and those of the service providers in setting charges. There would be greater transparency in the process if it could be clearly seen what the interests are. The commissioner will find it easier to reach a balanced decision if each party is able to articulate its own interests strongly and clearly.
The role of the committees is to advise the commissioner on the promotion of the interests of the customers of that authority. To do that effectively, they need to be able to explore those interests independently and in the light of the circumstances in that area of Scotland. There is a danger that if they are chaired by the commissioner they would feel constrained as to what they could do and say, especially when it came to the position of the commissioner. I suspect, as these things happen, he would feel obliged in the committee to defend his position. Therefore, I believe the committee would not be able to send to the commissioner, as the regulator, its independent views on behalf of consumers.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are much less significant than Amendment No. 30, but they basically come from the same position. Currently, the Bill as it stands suggests not fewer than six and not more than nine members of the committee. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 make modest increases so that that subsection would read "not fewer than 7"and "not more than 11" members.
By reducing the size of local committees—which is what the Government propose to do—when we compare them with the existing size of the three area committees of the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers'

1283
Council, it will be increasingly difficult for the committees to represent the wide range of interests of consumers; for example, those from rural areas and those with disabilities. The three water authorities cover large areas—the whole of Scotland. Dividing Scotland into three makes pretty wide areas and I suspect that with as few as six members it would not be possible for the Government to ensure that they represented the wide interests of consumers in a widely dispersed geographical area. They would probably need much nearer 11 members. It may not need to be 11 in all three areas; but, for example, in the north of Scotland, which delivers water services to consumers over a wide area, they would need about 11 members to bring in proper representation from the islands as well as the mainland areas. I quote the Government's document, A Fair Deal for Consumers, which said, in March 1998:
"The government believe that consumers should have an effective and powerful voice within the regulatory system, charged exclusively with representing the consumer interest".
I believe that a reduction in the number of people on the committees is not a good sign as regards representing the consumer interest.
My last amendment echoes something currently in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. That Act requires the local area committees of the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers' Council to hold at least one of its meetings in a year in public. It is not clear to me why the provision has not been carried forward into the new Bill. Mine is largely a probing amendment to establish why the Government have not brought forward that provision from the 1994 Act into the new Bill. It seems to me to be important that public meetings of the bodies should be encouraged so that consumers can see that their interests are being properly and openly represented.
I am sorry if I have gone on a little, but the amendments were bundled together and that suited me because they all relate to the same point. I hope that the Minister, who is with me at the Dispatch Box for the second time today, will be able to give me the kind of assurances and answer that might satisfy those of us who are interested in such issues in Scotland. If not, he might consider bringing forward his own amendments to deal with at least some, if not all the points I made. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support these amendments. If my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie were here, I know that he would speak to them. He is involved in other activities in Scotland. He has asked me to give his support and I give mine as well. Like the noble Lord, I was surprised when I read the Bill and saw the provisions for Scotland. I believe I said at Second Reading that it seemed somewhat impertinent and patronising for this Parliament to be seeking to legislate for the new Parliament so close to its formation. I understand that the Government's stance is that they are not imposing on the new Scottish Parliament, but merely making legislation available should it wish to use it. Nevertheless, I find it a rather odd situation.
1284
My noble friend has asked me to say that he believes that the new committees must be beefed up to give them the role of an advocate for the consumer. As regards Amendment No. 30, he makes the interesting point not simply that there is a conflict of interest as regards the chairman if he or she is to chair meetings, but that the commissioner will be in a better position in not having to chair a meeting because he or she would be able to speak more extensively from the floor. That is not a point which would have immediately have occurred to me, but I believe that he is right. Generally, we support this group of amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why we have not waited until there is a Scottish Parliament in existence to legislate. But the consensus in Scotland is that the existing regulatory regime is unsatisfactory. Therefore, the Government want to provide the Scottish executive with a chance to introduce a better regime as quickly as possible. Waiting until the Parliament and the executive are in place might, given other priorities, have meant a year's unnecessary delay. I believe that the proposals will not pre-empt the Scottish Parliament. I do not believe that they are in any way patronising. The legislation will provide the Scottish executive with the option to introduce the new system, but it will not be bound to do so.
The proposed changes to the arrangements for the consultative committees contained in Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 appear to be motivated by concern that customer representation in the new regulatory system needs to be strengthened. I shall try to demonstrate that this concern is misplaced and that consequently the amendments are unnecessary and run the risk of undermining what we believe is a coherent system.
I shall preface my remarks on individual amendments with a few general comments about the new system and how customers are already at its heart. Concern about the strength of customer representation appears to be based on the assumption that the commissioner will be required to strike a balance between the interests of water consumers on the one hand and those of the water authorities on the other. However, there is no question of the commissioner having to perform any such balancing act. Clause 12 places on the commissioner the general function of promoting the interests of the water authorities' customers. That function is not qualified by a requirement to balance the customers' interests against those of the authorities. That reflects the fact that the Scottish water authorities remain in public ownership and control. As such they do not, and should not, have any interests of their own that might be at odds with those of their customers, the public. Unlike privately owned companies, they have no shareholders' interests to be considered. So in such circumstances the commissioner's only concern is to ensure that the customer gets the best possible deal, quality of service and price.

1285
I now turn to the individual amendments. Changing the name of the consultative committee, which is what will happen under Amendment No. 29, if that is accepted, could have the effect of undermining the integrity of the approach adopted in the Bill.
The Bill is quite clear that it is the commissioner who has the function of promoting the interests of customers. The role of the committees is to support the commissioner in that task. The committees are not intended to be separate consumer bodies posing as independent voices of the customer. Therefore, the title given to them in the Bill is an accurate description of their intended role.
The alternative title suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would not be helpful in that it could lead to confusion about the role of the committees and could even result in the commissioner's role being undermined. We do not believe that would be in the interests of customers. Moreover, it would be misleading and unhelpful if the committees were to be given a title which suggested a role for them, which in fact does not exist.
I trust that the Committee will accept that the title given to the committees is suitable to their role and function as contained in this Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 30 and the proposal for independent chairmen, the Bill deliberately provides for the commissioner to chair each of the three consultative committees. There are several reasons for this. First, the committees need to have a good working relationship with the commissioner if their views are to carry proper weight with him or her. Making the commissioner chairman will help to achieve that. Secondly, it will ensure that the commissioner gets direct exposure to the issues that come before the committees. Finally, given the commissioner's central role in the system, the committees' standing and authority are likely to be greater under his or her chairmanship. Those benefits would be lost were the amendment to be carried. Perhaps more significantly, however, the amendment would pose a risk to the effectiveness of the new system. Let me repeat: the commissioner is the central figure in the system. We do not intend that the committees should act independently of the commissioner.
Separate chairmen would run the risk of the committees attempting to expand their role beyond that provided for in the Bill. Were they to do so, the clarity of the system would be lost and the commissioner's position within it undermined. That would not be in the customers' interest.
The Bill defines clear roles for the commissioner and the committees in the interests of the customers. It is important for these roles that the relationship of the committees to the commissioner is clear. We believe that having the commissioner as chairman will help to achieve that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, argued for an increase in the membership of the consultative committees. Setting the size of bodies such as the consultative committees is a matter of striking the right balance. A body whose membership is too small is unlikely to contain the necessary experience or spread of interests
1286
to be able to speak for the whole range of customers. A relatively large membership can be unwieldy and lack the focus of a smaller group. In settling for a membership of between six and nine in this case, the Government believe that they have got the balance right.
There is a further point. The committees are there to form a view on the interests of all the water authorities' customers—that is to say, non-domestic customers, large and small, as well as domestic customers. It would not be feasible for every category of customer to have its own representation on the committees. Thai would need a much larger membership than is being proposed in the amendment. Instead, the Government's intention is that the members should try to take a view of the interests of the whole range of customers. What we are keen to avoid is the position where, for example, a committee member from a rural area sees his or her duty as simply advising on the interests of other rural customers.
I do not believe that increasing the membership of the committees by two or three is likely to result in more effective expression of customers' views. It is, however, likely to make the committees more unwieldy.
Finally, I am grateful for the opportunity which this amendment gives me to explain the position of the consultative committees holding meetings in public. This is an issue on which Scottish Ministers may wish to give guidance to the commissioner. We fully expect that they will wish to be consistent with the present Government's position on meetings held by public bodies. Broadly speaking, this means that we would expect most, if not all, meetings to be held in public. Clearly, there are occasions when sensitive matters, for example, relating to named individuals or commercial confidences, need to be considered in private. But these should be relatively rare occurrences, particularly in bodies whose purpose is to determine and then advise on issues that concern the public.
In conclusion, I hope that I have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Committee that the arrangements for the consultative committees contained in the Bill provide a coherent and consistent means of protecting the customers' interests. Further, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, might weaken these arrangements to the detriment of the customer. Accordingly, I hope that the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will be content for this amendment to be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may press the Minister for a moment on his comments that a committee of 11 plus a chairman is unwieldy. I am sure that the Minister has far more experience than I of chairing committees. Twelve committee members does not strike one as an unmanageably large number, particularly when one must assume that occasionally one or two people will be absent. I agree that it is important to have the right size of committee so that there can be a wide-ranging debate but a conclusion can be reached, and ensuring that a large group does not spend all day expressing a great many individual views. While I entirely take that

1287
point, this is a very modest amendment. I would be very surprised if any noble Lord on the Government Front Bench and Back Benches could not handle a committee of 12.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I take the general point just raised by the noble Baroness. During some of the more dejected periods of my life I have chaired bodies for a living. It depends very much on the individual circumstances of the particular committee. There are times when one will want larger representation. But it is the judgment of the people close to the industry that in this case they have the right size of committee and they will be able to achieve what they want effectively. Therefore, I defer to the professionals involved in the water industry and the officials whose advice they take.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That reply was a bit like the curate's egg: good in parts. I shall deal first with the good bit and get it out of the way. I was grateful to the Minister for his assurance that most if not all of the meetings would be held in public. Knowing how ministerial assurances are examined, that will probably tie down firmly not only the new Scottish executive but the commissioner and consultative committees and they will hold most of their meetings in public. I welcome that assurance, but that is about as far as it goes.
When the Minister described what these bodies would do I began to wonder whether it would be worth anybody's while being a member, let alone any member of the public going along to listen. I am as amazed as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, by the argument against going from a membership of between six and nine to one of between seven and 11. I find it hard to believe that a committee of seven to 11 people is unwieldy when one from six to nine is not. I have chaired meetings of more than 11 members. I accept that as the number approaches 20 it becomes unwieldy. For three years I chaired the board of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which had 12 members. I would not have described it as unwieldy. Although the board reflected the whole of the United Kingdom it was concerned solely with the fishing industry. One of the greatest difficulties was to achieve, even within 12 members, a board properly representative of both the various parts of the industry and its geographical spread. I am not entirely convinced by that argument.
But it almost does not seem to matter when I hear the description of what the Consultative Committees will be asked to do. At the end of the Minister's remarks on the first four amendments I was left wondering whether the whole intention was that the committees should be the lapdogs of the commissioner. Therefore, "consultative" seems to me to be too strong a word for what the Government envisage. It also appears to be perfectly proper to allow the Commissioner to be the chairman. Presumably, he would control the agenda and everything else. I was not convinced by it. The Minister's remarks indicated that I was wrong to assume that they would be consumer bodies. I shall study the Minister's words in detail to see whether my impression is justified by the text.
1288
I find it odd that the Minister should say that there will not be any conflict at any time between the water authorities' position and that of the consumer. Even though the water authorities are public bodies they will have problems to resolve which consumers believe should have been dealt with differently or better. There will be conflicts. If not, why bother to have these committees at all? For example, one can argue that because local authorities are public bodies none of us has any complaints about council tax or the delivery of services. Members of the Committee are aware that I live in the people's republic of Glasgow where the council tax rate quietly goes through the roof year on year, except in those years when the comrades have to face the electorate. Then, for some strange reason, they manage to keep down the council tax. I believe it is time that parts of the council face the electorate every year. In that way I have little doubt that the council tax will be hugely lower. The idea that because the City Council is a public body we have no problems or complaints as consumers, let alone payers, is rubbish. Water users are in exactly the same boat.
I did not intend to make the following point but I feel that I must now do so. Recently at Question Time I mentioned additional costs to be imposed on rural abattoirs and agricultural markets as a result of the new meat inspection regulations by the North of Scotland Water Authority. Over the next four years that authority intends to increase its charge to Stornoway abattoir from £10,000 to £51,000 a year. The same authority intends to increase its charges to Perth Auction Mart from about £24,000 to £150,000 a year. Frankly, those consumers are not best pleased and the regulator will have his ear bent by them. No doubt the water authority will tell the regulator why it intends to do that.
The idea that there will not be a conflict between the water authority and consultative committee is just cloud-cuckoo-land. That is why it is important that the chairman should be independent. If I were a member of any of the organisations that I have mentioned I would not look at this body with any great hope that it would represent my views, because it appears that the chairman is not there to represent consumers' views.
I am not very pleased with the answers. I found it odd that the Minister began by saying that there was a consensus that the present regime was unsatisfactory. That may or may not be so. From my discussions with the Scottish Consumers' Council, there is not a consensus that what the Government are doing is satisfactory. Together with the Scottish Consumers' Council I shall take away what the Minister has said and examine it. I hope that the Minister will take away what I have said and think about it and perhaps return to this matter at Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Schedule to be inserted in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Commissioner's advice on charges]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert (", and
(f) the impact of charges on consumers, and especially on vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers.")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 34. In Clause 13 one sees a list of items under the general rubric "Commissioner's advice on charges". Subsection (3) lists a number of items:
"In preparing his advice the Commissioner shall have regard to—

"(a) the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which authorities are using their resources in exercising their functions,

"(b) the likely cost to each authority, for the period of the advice, of exercising the functions mentioned in subsection (4) below".

To return to the previous point, inevitably that will mean that the commissioner must balance the complaints of the consumer on price against the needs of the water authority to raise money. The subsection continues:

"(c) the likely borrowing capacity of each authority for the period of the advice,

"(d) any guidance issued to authorities by the Secretary of State, and

"(e) any directions issued under section 116 or 117 of this Act".

My amendment seeks to add another item: the impact of charges on consumers, especially on vulnerable and disadvantaged consumers. The Water Industry Commissioner is to be given the general function of promoting the interests of customers of the new water and sewerage authorities. That is what we have been discussing. It should be explicitly stated in this clause that he or she must have regard to the interests of consumers in giving the Secretary of State advice on charges. In particular, he should be required to have regard to the interests of vulnerable groups of customers; for example, those on low incomes, or those with a medical condition who require access to a plentiful supply of water. He should have regard to the impact on non-domestic consumers whose business may be adversely affected by the huge hikes in water charges which I mentioned in the last round of amendments.
I can see no reason why such words should not be added to the Bill to make clear the commissioner's duty to consumers in general, and to the vulnerable and disadvantaged in particular. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: In addressing this amendment, I am afraid that I shall have to repeat much of what I said a few moments ago. Let me take the opportunity of replying to the jibes of the noble Lord about my Glaswegian origins and the behaviour of my party in my home town. If members of the party have any complaints about the council tax, they are not nearly as strong as the complaints they had about his poll tax!
Much of what he said may have baffled others listening who were not aware of the fact that in a month's time there will be a Scottish Parliament with 129 MSPs who will no doubt give very detailed scrutiny to many of the important issues in what is a huge industry planning a £1.5 billion capital investment.
1290
I think that he both underestimates the scale of the challenge that will be there for the committees, and the public-spirited nature of his fellow Scots.
When framing advice for Ministers on charges, the commissioner's only concern will be the interests of the customers as a whole, as it will be in all aspects of his or her work. Clause 13, in dealing with charges, establishes the framework within which the commissioner will formulate advice for Ministers. That framework will enable the commissioner to deliver an objective assessment of the minimum charge levels needed by the authorities.
Clause 13(3) specifies a number of factors the commissioner must consider in framing the advice. Thus the commissioner is required to take account of the duties placed on the authorities, of the various standards they must meet, and the costs of doing all that. Crucially, he or she must also have regard to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the authorities and the way in which they are managed.
The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that the customers as a whole pay no more than is necessary for the service they receive. More particularly, they will give the commissioner the power to stop the cost of any inefficiency on the part of the water authorities being passed on to the customers.
Against that background, I do not believe that the amendment could add anything to the way in which the commissioner serves the customer in this area. As the Bill stands, everything that he or she will do in relation to preparing advice will be with a view to minimising the impact of charges.
Requiring the commissioner to consider the impact of charges on particular groups of customers would fundamentally alter the commissioner's remit. The commissioner's task is to come to an objective view on the income requirements of the authorities. Expanding the remit, as the noble Lord suggests, would involve the commissioner in matters not directly related to the efficient operation of the water and sewerage industry.
In such circumstances, the commissioner would be expected to reach judgments on whether customers, or particular categories of customers, were able to afford particular levels of charges. That would draw the commissioner into an area of wider social policy which is for the Government to address.
The Government believe that by concentrating efforts on keeping prices as low as is consistent with a high quality service, the commissioner will be able to serve the interests of all customers.
This amendment, rather than advancing the interests of customers or groups of customers, is likely to blur the commissioner's role and make the commissioner less effective in promoting the interests of customers. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Perhaps he has more confidence in the various bodies he mentioned than I have. I am not entirely sure whether he is still a resident of the city of Glasgow. In that regard, he is unlike some of his noble

1291
friends who have taken the precaution of living outside it where the council tax is lower. I am surprised that he is not complaining about the size of the council tax, as I am. I realise his salary nowadays is modest compared with what it used to be. My salary is much more modest than it used to be, and the hourly rate must fall well below the minimum wage!
We have had a good run on this issue. I shall reflect on what the Minister said. I remember having often to make similar answers from the Dispatch Box to his noble friends on this side of the Chamber who wanted this, that or the other group taken into account. I find it interesting today that, as regards amendments mentioning the disabled and disadvantaged, the usual suspects are not present to add their voices to mine. I suppose that has something to do with the change of government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Remaining schedule and clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Civil Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 1999
7.7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved.
The most fundamental reforms of the civil justice system for over 100 years will come into effect on 26th April. The reforms aim to provide a single system of civil justice based on the fundamental principles of proportionality, clarity and efficiency. The civil procedure rules which will come into force on that day are a key aspect of the reforms, a new unified code of civil procedure to implement the expressed objectives of the new system.
There are other steps to be taken in this process of reform which, although apparently minor, still make an important contribution to the achievement of the modernisation of the civil justice system. One of those steps is the implementation of the Civil Procedure (Modification of Enactments) Order 1999 which is before the House today. The order is made under Section 4(2) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, the Act which provided the machinery for the reform of civil procedure. It established the civil procedure rule committee and gave it the task of drafting the new rules of court. When the 1997 Act was passed, it was recognised that certain aspects of the reform might
1292
conflict with existing provisions of primary legislation. Parliament recognised that some changes of substance might be necessary in order to make the new reforms effective. However, it rightly wanted an opportunity to debate the changes before they were made. Section 4(2) of the 1997 Act therefore permits amendments to be made by order to primary legislation in order to facilitate the making of civil procedure rules. Those orders, such as the one before the House today, are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
The amendments which this order makes to primary legislation are small but significant. First, the order amends Section 11 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Section 11 permits the Lord Chancellor by order to provide that there shall be no restriction on the persons who may exercise rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation in relation to proceedings in a county court. That power is restricted to the types of proceedings listed in Section 11(2). Section 11(2)(e) currently provides that the power is exercisable in respect of proceedings,
"referred to arbitration in accordance with county court rules made under section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984 (small claims)".
These are currently the only proceedings for which an order allowing lay representation in county court proceedings has been made.
The civil procedure rules have moved away from treating small claims cases in the county courts as if they had been referred to arbitration. It is a fiction now to think of small claims as arbitration. Article 3 of the draft order amends Section 11(2) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 by referring to small claims instead of arbitration. This will reflect the new rules and allow the current successful practice of permitting lay representation in small claims cases to continue.
The other amendment proposed is to the Civil Evidence Act 1995. This Act made new provisions for the admissibility of hearsay evidence and the proof of documentary evidence in civil cases. Before the implementation of the 1995 Act, the law on hearsay evidence was governed by the Civil Evidence Act 1968 which contained an elaborate system of notices and counter-notices to enable parties to adduce hearsay evidence. Parliament greatly simplified the procedures in the 1995 Act by providing that hearsay evidence should generally be admissible in civil proceedings and by providing for notification to be given to the other parties in accordance with the rules of court. Section 16(3) of the Act provided that transitional provisions could be contained in the commencement order but, subject to any such provisions, the Act would not apply to cases begun before the commencement of the Act.
The Act was brought into force on 31st January 1997 but, by an oversight, the power to provide transitional provisions was not exercised in the commencement order. As a result, cases commenced before that date were not brought under the new Act and had to continue to apply the cumbersome and expensive provisions of the 1968 Act. Part 33 of the Civil Procedures Rules (1998) contains the mechanism for the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the 1995 Act. The amendment proposed in Article 4 of the draft order allows for rules of court or practice directions to make transitional

1293
provisions for the application of the Act to cases commenced before the 31st January 1997. It is intended that such provision will be made, thus providing that there will be only one set of rules for hearsay in all cases. That in itself will be beneficial. The regime which the uniform rules will apply will be simpler and more economical for litigants.
I have explained why the various provisions of this order are necessary. Together they will help to contribute towards the achievement of the objectives of the civil justice reforms. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, this programme of tidying up the civil legislation has been very much supported on this side of the House. Indeed, much of it was instituted under the previous administration. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Lord. McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his support. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 1999
7.13 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
My Lords, the European Parliamentary Elections Act received Royal Assent on 14th January this year. It provides for future elections to the European Parliament in Britain to be conducted using a regional list voting system. The draft regulations are to govern how the election on 10th June will be conducted.
The key text in British electoral law is of course the Representation of the People Act 1983, which itself has a couple of hundred sections and several schedules including one containing what are known as the election rules.
The regulations and rules governing all other elections, including of course the European Parliamentary Elections, are based on the adaptation and application of the 1983 Act. So, although the European Parliamentary Elections Act sets out the broad framework for how the elections will be run, this secondary legislation provides the subsidiary detail. The Government have consulted widely and we are grateful to all those who took the time to comment.
I will touch on some highlights. I begin with nominations. In each region every registered political party will he able to put forward a list containing up to as many names as there are seats to be filled in that region. Independent candidates will, of course, be able
1294
to stand. Nominations will have to be accompanied by a signature from each candidate indicating that they consent to the nomination. The nomination will have to be accompanied by a deposit of £5,000, the same for party lists, however many names they contain, as well as individuals. The closing date for nominations is 13th May.
As regards expenditure limits, for an individual candidate or a party contesting a single region the maximum that can be spent on the campaign will be £45,000, multiplied by the number of seats in the region. So, for example, in the north east, which has four seats, the maximum would be £180,000. A party contesting every region will be subject to a limit of £3.78 million, the total of all 11 regional limits. 'The party's expenditure limit is to cover all of its election expenditure. There will no longer be the distinction between constituency expenditure and national campaigning. By virtue of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, all expenditure has to be accounted for and be subject to the limit. This national limit of £3.78 million is in line with the Committee's recommendations. Parties contesting more than one region are free to spend their money where they choose. The Neill Committee has welcomed these general regulations governing party expenditure.
As regards counting arrangements, as in previous elections counting cannot begin until the polls close in the last EU member state on the evening of Sunday 13th June. Counting will be conducted at Westminster parliamentary constituency level, although the regulations allow an acting returning officer responsible for more than one Westminster constituency to combine them for counting purposes.
On recounts, the first point I make is that the regions which are being used for these elections are vast. There is no possibility of being able to count all the votes cast in one region in a single location. We have given a good deal of thought to that. It simply is not practical to transport the votes to one place from all over Scotland. We are therefore going to have a number of local counts across these regions in consequence of these regulations if they are approved. All the parties, and individual independent candidates of course, will have the right to be represented at all of the local counts. They will have the right to ask for a recount if they are unhappy with the way the count has been conducted.
Once each local count has been completed to everyone's satisfaction the returning officer will transmit the result to the regional returning officer who will in turn give him or her clearance to declare it locally. When all the local results have been passed to the regional returning officer he will perform a seat allocation calculation. The political parties and independent candidates will be allowed to be present at the regional centre where the seat allocation calculation is to be performed. They will be able to ask the regional returning officer to repeat the calculation if they suspect an arithmetical error. The regional result, therefore, is nothing more or less than the amalgamation of all the local results.
Your Lordships have already approved similar procedures in respect of the Scottish and Welsh elections and I am aware that my ministerial colleagues have undertaken that in the event of any real difficulty arising from those arrangements the provisions will be looked at again. I am happy to give a similar undertaking in respect of these elections and these arrangements. We have made repeated assurances, which I am happy again to confirm, that we will carry out a review of the operation of the new system following the election on 10th June and that this area is perhaps one that the review may need to cover.
The design of the ballot paper is based on the results of extensive research which the University of London Constitution Unit and Social and Community Planning Research undertook. The design has been well received and attracted little comment during the consultation process.
I turn to vacancies. This was discussed when we discussed the Bill itself. Where an MEP dies or resigns and thereby brings about a vacancy, if he was originally elected on a party list the vacancy will normally be filled by the next available person on that list. However, that person will need to produce a certificate from the party nominating officer indicating that the party is still content to be represented by that person. This is to guard against the possibility that a candidate on the list may have changed parties between the original election and the time of the vacancy. As I explained to your Lordships in Committee last June, it would be wrong if the next candidate on the list had left that party for another, or formed his or her own party, but was still automatically entitled to fill the vacancy. It was our intention to include in these regulations a provision which would enable the regional returning officer to reject such a candidate in favour of the next willing—I almost said certifiable, but I mean eligible—candidate further down the party list. That is what we have done.
Where an MEP dies or resigns and was originally elected as an independent, or where a party list is exhausted, a by-election will be held. Those arrangements are identical to those which the House approved for the Scottish and Welsh elections.
I appreciate that I have highlighted only one or two matters. These regulations will enable the next and future elections to the European Parliament to be conducted using the proportional regional list system, which Parliament approved—eventually—in the shape of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. I therefore commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Obviously, he could touch on only one or two issues in this long piece of secondary legislation. I wish to make two general points first.
1296
This legislation underlines the problem that we in the legislature have of being unable to make any amendment to any provision in a piece of secondary legislation. I have no problem with the great bulk of this legislation, but I am concerned about one or two aspects. My dilemma, and that of my colleagues in the other place, is that we either accept it all or reject it all. I believe that as parliamentarians we must think long and hard about a better way of dealing with secondary legislation, especially when noble Lords see the size of this document.
My second point is that which I made on the equivalent Welsh and Scottish orders. Clearly, most of the legislation represents a complex series of changes to the Representation of the People Act in order to allow for lists. Lists are alien not only to that Act but to the British political tradition. I will leave that aside as we have already had that debate. However, I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion.
I appreciate that the answer may be that between the passage of the original Bill and these elections they had no time to bring forward primary legislation. However, I believe that they should consider bringing forward a Representation of the People Bill which deals with the list system, so that in future we need not go backwards and forwards from that Act to these regulations in order to work out all the changes which have had to be made to a first-past-the-post electoral system to bring it into line with a list system.
I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I speak only for myself—I have consulted no one—but while I do not like this system I believe that it should be properly regulated. The only way to do so is to have a self-standing Act so that we are not confronted with the bitty changes we see here.
My substantive points are in ascending order. I was surprised to see that the ballot paper, which appears on page 44, has been presented horizontally and not vertically. I am delighted to see the names—the Minister always made it clear that they would appear. I had some trouble with the Minister in respect of the Welsh Bill, but I was happy that he saw the force of the argument and that the change was made in subsequent Bills.
In Scotland—I am not sure about Wales—in two weeks' time I shall be looking at a ballot paper on which the list is delineated vertically; in other words, the parties are listed one below the other. Therefore, I was surprised to see a horizontal list. I do not think that there will be confusion, although a few eyebrows may be raised in Scotland and Wales when they find that they have yet another variation of ballot papers within a few weeks. England will not have the problem on 6th May, so people will not realise that there is a vertical potential. I am intrigued that the Government decided to make the ballot paper vertical for the European elections.
As regards the deposit, I shall make two different arguments, but there is a way to bring them together. I understand that £5,000 and merely the signature of the registered party's nominating officer is enough. No longer will people have to go out and compile a list of assenters of electors who are prepared to sign the

1297
nomination papers. Five thousand pounds is a hefty sum for a genuine independent or small political party which wants to stand for genuine bona fide reasons. I am assuming that it will lose its deposit. That is unfair. It would he better to have a lower money threshold and insist that a list of signatures is obtained by any party or candidate wanting to stand.
On the other hand, I do not believe that £5,000 will be enough to stop people using the system for self-publicity. In the Scottish parliamentary elections a restaurant—I shall not name it because it would receive even more coverage—has registered itself for £150 as a political party and is to stand. It is £150 to register yourself as—I shall be neutral—The Salad Days Party registered from The Salad Days restaurant and £5,000 to get yourself on the ballot paper. That may sound expensive, but it will appear on the ballot paper which will be seen by every elector in a very wide area. It will also get it on many of the notices surrounding the ballot. And, if it is prepared to pay for a leaflet, it will get a free delivery to every household. That is not a bad bargain. I do not know whether anyone will use it in the European elections, but I understand from the press that someone is using it in the Scottish parliamentary elections. I shall not mention the name of the restaurant because that may encourage people. However, I believe that for future elections the Government must reconsider their decision to have no assenters.
The Minister knows that I do not like the concept of registration. I believed that it is profoundly anti-democratic and he knows that there were some difficulties. I do not know whether there have been difficulties on the European scene; I suppose that we are not near enough to that election. However, the Scottish Green Party, for example, had to become affiliated to the English Green Party in order to be allowed to stand in the Scottish elections and probably the same will be true of Wales. That is not right and we must examine the system again.
The Minister clearly knew what my two substantive points would be and therefore he dealt with them. But, I am afraid, not to my satisfaction. He will not be surprised to hear that. Rule 46 on page 37 deals with recounts. As the Minister rightly said, the same applies in Wales and Scotland on the regional list. The count will be conducted in parliamentary constituencies. When the count has finished the people in the constituency will have the right to demand a recount. The results will go to the regional returning officer who will bring them together from all the constituencies and perform the magic of d'Hondt. As I am going somewhere tonight, and the speed of the Minister's delivery leads me to suspect that he is, too, I shall not bore your Lordships with d'Hondt. You can all be grateful for that, especially noble Lords who have already heard my exposition.
There is a problem which, to be fair, was acknowledged by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Sewel, when we dealt with the Welsh and Scottish elections. It is only when someone comes to the last position—perhaps the second to last, too—in the calculation for d'Hondt that he will know whether he ought to have a recount. By that time, the horse has bolted and it is not possible to go back and
1298
have a recount. We were told that all one can do is to have an election petition. That is not a very sensible way to deal with the recount proposition.
I did not have the time today to draw together results from the last general election as they may come out in some of the Euro-constituencies. However, I have looked at the results of the last two general elections in Scotland. For example, in Glasgow at the last election. assuming that the second votes were the same as the. first votes, the very last seat was down to the Labour Party by only 730 votes over the next nearest candidate who happened to be from the SNP. Therefore, I have no great regrets in that regard. But 730 votes is not many when one considers the total number of votes.
In central Scotland it was even worse at the last election. When it came to deciding on the last vote position, which fell to the Conservative Party, I am happy to say, it fell to that party by only 137 votes over the Liberal Democrats. I believe that 137 votes is not many votes in an electorate of 400,000. It is just a few bundles. I believe that I can easily persuade your Lordships that recounts at that stage will clearly he felt to be needed to make sure that nothing happened at those original parliamentary counts to move ballot papers about.
That fact could not be known when the counts took place at parliamentary constituency level because in relation to most of the rest of the constituencies looked at in Scotland, for example, there was not much doubt about the last seat. But it was very close in two of them. In the previous election, as regards the Highlands and Islands seat, 466 separated the SNP from the Labour Party. The SNP won that seat. Therefore, the Labour Party may have an interest in trying to ensure that the original counting was right and that there was no confusion.
Over a large number of constituencies—and in this case it would be the whole of Scotland or the whole of the south east of England—not many individual. mistakes need to be made to make up a difference of 173.
Somebody may be quick enough to say that, on that number of counts, the chances are that the mistakes will all balance each other out. It may be possible to prove that to me mathematically but I suspect that a candidate from a party defeated by a handful of votes for the last seat, especially if it were the only seat he would win in that area, may not feel so neutral and balanced about a lack of a recount. Therefore, we must try to find a way to deal with recounts.
I know it will be difficult and I know what may happen. It may be necessary to delay the decision on the last seat in order to have a recount provision. Boxes would have to be reopened and the system gone through again. But the Government are conceding that that may have to happen in any event but only, much later, after an election petition. That is very unsatisfactory.
Lastly, I wish to raise the question of by-elections. I checked the Scotland Bill and I left it thinking that there were no provisions for by-elections. I have read quite carefully Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. It does not seem to me that there is any provision for by-elections.

1299
Perhaps I should have looked at the orders to see whether the Government have dealt with them in another way. Are the Government consistent between the three and are the Government sure that they are consistent between the three?
Secondly, is it possible to have by-elections in a proportional representation system. The position is that if a member dies or resigns, his seat goes to the next person on his party's list for the simple reason that the d'Hondt calculator is supposed to decide on proportionality. The seat goes to the next person on the party's list.
The noble Lord and I had many discussions about this and we reached a sort of middle-ground solution as regards what would happen if the next person on the list did not want to be elected. He may have found a job which is even better than being a Member of the European Parliament and no longer wished to be elected. He should then be able to say to the returning officer that he does not want to be elected and it would then be necessary to go to the next person on the list.
However, the other point I raised, which the Minister took on board, was in relation to the situation in which the next person on the list has left the party. He may want to go to the European Parliament—and who would not, given the salaries and conditions?—but he no longer represents the party. The Minister came forward with the provision that the party must certify that the person is still in the party.
I am glad that the Minister underlined that point because one difficulty I had was that while it was clear to me that it would be quite wrong for the person, if he were no longer in the party, to receive the seat, equally, it would be quite wrong for the party to decide that it no longer liked the colour of his tie, his face or that it preferred a candidate lower down the list. I am glad that the Minister put on record that the only reason would be if the person had left the party. That is fine and right and retains the proportionality.
Let us say that the Labour Party gains one seat in the south. I do not know whether or not it will do so. It will probably gain more than one seat, but let us say that it gains only one seat. I grant to your Lordships that it is unlikely but let us assume that the problem occurs in relation to the Labour Party's list. It goes down the list and has no other candidate. That means that there must be a by-election. That by-election is not held on a proportional system at all. It is held on first-past-the-post. Holding an election in those large regions using the first-past-the-post system means, inevitably, that the party which won the first seat on the d'Hondt calculator will win the by-election. It is nothing to do with proportionality. It may be a member of one of the other parties who wins. It may be the party which gained only one seat. The Labour Party will lose the one seat to which it is entitled by proportionality.
It seems to me that there is a huge contradiction by holding elections using the d'Hondt system, which is looking for proportionality, and filling up places of retired or dying members from the party's list because, rightly, that keeps the proportionality. But if there are
1300
no more candidates on the party list, rather than leave the seat empty, which at least would be something, a by-election must be held in which that party is unlikely to gain back the seat. Therefore, the proportionality is shot through.
Perhaps I may say as a mathematician that, if we are to have proportionality, for goodness sake let us have some purity about it and let us not write these errors.
Holding the seat vacant is not the best solution but it is the only solution in a proportional system. We canvassed other possible solutions which were shot down by either the Minister or myself. I believe that I shot down one of my own proposals in mid-speech, because this is a difficult matter, but the solution of having by-elections where the party may lose the seat to which it is entitled is not the answer to that problem.
Otherwise, I am content with the regulations and I look forward to hearing the Minister yet again try to defend one or two of those positions.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. My noble friend Lord McNally would have responded from this side of the House but, unfortunately, he is not well and it falls to me to respond on this matter.
We welcome many aspects of the regulations. We are pleased to see a national limit on party expenditure. That is right and the Neill committee was right to suggest it. We welcome also the change to take account of the Bowman case which allows for third parties—not political parties but individuals or organisations—who wish to show support for a candidate by expenditure which is more than the current nominal £5.
In the other place my right honourable friend Alan Beith expressed his concern about the appearance of the ballot paper. I am not particular bothered about whether it is horizontal or vertical but I am more worried about the arrow on the ballot paper which points straight to the Conservative box. I hope that it will not give that party any added advantage. I am sure that some research would have been carried out on that aspect and I am sure that the risk of confusion is very small.
I have some sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I am afraid I find it difficult to pronounce his title; he probably finds it difficult to pronounce mine. The schedule provides for local recounts, as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, but not for recounts for the whole region in the event of a close result. Local returning officers can authorise a recount in the local counting centre, but the overall regional result will not be known at that stage.
The Government say that regional recounts will not take place because all staff would have to wait in the counting centres for the final result in the region to be declared. That would be costly and impractical. In the event of a close regional result the returning officer can recalculate, but cannot order local recounts.
We have no doubt that that will get us into difficulties. Returning officers, obviously, do not like recounts—in many cases, rightly so—as many of those

1301
who have fought elections will know. However, in the new circumstances there will be much more pressure for recounts in the light of regional situations. If a party, be it a leading party or a second party, thinks that it might have enough votes to gain one seat, a request for a recount is reasonable.
We need to avoid court actions, such as that at Winchester. I am certainly not complaining about the court's decision in that case. The arguments have been well put both here and in the other place. This problem needs to be addressed and I am sure that we shall have an opportunity, soon after the election, to look at the regulations. We would not wish, in any way, to hinder progress and we shall certainly support the regulations.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I welcome the comments that have been made. Many points to which both noble Lords have referred are dealt with by the assurance that I gave, and I repeat, that we intend to review the running of such elections soon after the 10th June election. I am happy to give that assurance once more.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to his dislike of the list. We have held that debate on several other occasions and it is not fundamental to the content of these regulations.
The noble Lord makes the point that there is a case for—I believe I can fairly paraphrase him—a codification of the Representation of the People Act, together with any subsequent and consequential regulations. I think that case should be made. I think your Lordships will know that it would depend on legislative time. If the legislative time of this House is to be unnaturally taken up with debates, which are extremely lengthy, about the reform of this House, it would be difficult indeed for me to please the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, by introducing a codification Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. So, if I were to persuade my colleagues not to bring forward amendments to the House of Lords Bill, so that we complete it quickly, is the Minister suggesting that we may have a representation of the people Bill in the summer to be passed in this Session?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord might have such a Bill and I shall wait for the offer. Not only would I carefully consider bringing forward such a Bill, but I would also be inclined to buy the noble Lord a large drink. However, I think my money is safe!
The noble Lord then turned to the ballot. I do not think that anyone seriously criticises the form of the paper. It is fairly plain and is capable of being used quite easily. Whether it should be vertical or horizontal—that is the ballot paper, not the voter—could be the subject of review after 10th June.
On the deposit, we think that the deposit is about right. The old deposit was £1,000, but the regions are significantly larger than the old constituencies. If the
1302
"Salad Days" political party—I take it that is not a coded reference to the Conservative Party in its present limbo-land—were to run, £5,000 is not a serious detriment. I do not believe that to find 12, 20, 30 or 40 signatures is a serious detriment either. It is difficult to check the bona fides of signatures on such a basis and we believe that £5,000 is about the right amount. It does not discourage, unnecessarily or unfairly, those who want to stand, but it is capable of discouraging those who are simply frivolous.
The noble Lord raised the question of registration but, as he conceded, that is something both he and I discussed at length during the passage of the Bill. We think it is about right.
The more important questions were the last two to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, also referred. Those are the questions of recounts and by-elections. On recounts, they are available at local level by virtue of the regulations. I am happy to make it plain that it is perfectly reasonable for any party, or any independent candidate, to call for a recount in circumstances where they think it is appropriate, not simply where the result is close. That is the real answer to the problem of recounts. If the local party officials, who are very astute and well trained in these matters, are of the view hat a recount is justified locally, they are entitled to ask for one in the usual way. That being so, the remedy is there for them. It is not appropriate to wait and see whether on a regional basis and on the application of the formula, they may want to have a recount throughout the constituency. Their opportunity is there immediately and they must take it. I repeat that we shall pay careful attention to that in the review.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I can ask for clarification. Given sight of public opinion Polls and the results in an area, I might be able, with the help of a computer, to work out those areas where it is possible that my party may be in close combat with one of the other parties for the last seat and there may be areas where I can discount that for a variety of reasons. There are the first-past-the-posts and you do not get many top-ups.
If I decided in, say, Glasgow, that the last seat would be narrowly fought, would I be justified in instructing all my agents at all the parliamentary counts in Glasgow to demand recounts at that level just to make sure that the votes were correct so that on arriving at the calculation of the last one I would be certain that no mistakes had been made further down the chain?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord would be perfectly entitled to remind all party officials, particularly those taking the decision locally, of the power that they have to call for a recount, irrespective of whether or not there is an apparent majority of about 44, as in Winchester, or an apparent majority of 10,000. It is the inaccuracy of the counting that matters. I believe that officials are astute; they know what to look for and I believe that there is plenty of safeguard there on a local basis.

1303
On by-elections, it is important that the UK should maintain a full complement in the European Parliament. We believe that the schemes that we have within this regulation are appropriate. Earlier I said that this was the same as that already approved for Scotland and Wales. I do not have the orders on Scotland and Wales with me, for obvious reasons, but I believe it is a fair point for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to have raised. I shall have that researched and shall write to him as soon as I have the details.
Those are the points raised by your Lordships and I hope I have dealt with them. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tacis Programme: ECC Report
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon rose to move, That this House take note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Partnership and Trust: The Tacis Programme (33rd Report, Session 1997–98, HL Paper 157).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this debate relates to a report from the environment committee of your Lordships' House in relation to one of our more interesting studies. It made a welcome change from landfill and drinking water. The report was published in January and concerns environmental aspects of the Tacis programme. The Tacis programme is the European Union's fund for technical assistance to the former states of the Soviet Union and Mongolia. During our inquiry, a few of us visited Ukraine and Russia. I resisted the temptation, which would have drawn heavily on the funds of the House, to suggest that we went to Mongolia.
The funding for Tacis has built up gradually over the past few years. In 1997, the last year for a complete picture of the finances, it was £342 million, which constitutes about half a per cent of the European Union's budget.
This inquiry was in some ways a sequel to the report of the committee in 1995 under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, when we examined the PHARE programme of the European Union and its aid to the east-European countries. Unlike the PHARE programme however, the Tacis programme does not have the environment as a separate budgetary heading; it is merely one of a number of objectives within the programme such as increasing levels of democracy. However, we found many similarities with our previous inquiry; for example, the lack of staff in the European Commission and the over-reliance on paper systems and outside consultants.
The Russian Federation consists of 15 per cent of the world's land mass and, if we include the other NIS states, it amounts to almost 20 per cent. It has an appalling legacy of environmental degradation, partly due to poorly managed industrial activity. This environmental degradation is of great significance to the
1304
whole world. It affects biodiversity, climate change and trans-boundary pollution. Economic growth is, of course, essential, as is the reduction of the disparity between rich and poor, not only within the Russian Federation but within and between other nations of the world. But it is vital that economic growth should not take place to the detriment of the environment.
As in our previous inquiry, we found a situation of considerable complexity, and there were other similarities. There was throughout too much reliance on western experts and insufficient use of local skills. Eastern Europe, Russia and the other countries of the old Soviet bloc have highly trained scientists and engineers; they are not, as they said bitterly to us, a third-world country. They resent the often patronising attitudes of western experts. We tend to assume that we have all the answers whereas in many ways there are parts of the old Soviet bloc which have aspects which we should perhaps be admiring—the tendency for group solidarity and, in the past, good public services.
The imposition of inappropriate off-the-peg solutions by western experts and the over-rapid introduction of a market economy in some ways has contributed to the current financial crisis in Russia. There has been a consistent failure to take into account social and psychological factors that have been brought about by a command economy.
Our inquiry and report last year was set against a background of growing crisis in the Russian Federation and a rapidly changing situation. Inevitably our report therefore can only be a snapshot which was more or less true at the time but will have less relevance as the months go by. One of the reasons for holding our inquiry last year was that the European Commission was drafting a new Tacis regulation to cover the years 2000 to 2006, a seven-year span, and we hoped to influence what went into that new regulation. The Commission's proposals were published shortly before our report, but we had made considerable efforts in Brussels and elsewhere to describe our findings to them and hoped that that would have some influence. However, there is little sign that we made much impression on the Commission, and that is deeply disappointing.
It acknowledges the existence of some problems we identified—too much bureaucracy and over-reliance on western consultants; secretive tendering procedures; and the swamping of other environmental concerns, especially in the Ukraine, by the problems of nuclear safety post-Chernobyl. In fact, when we visited Kiev, the only decently equipped office and government ministry we went to was furnished from Tacis funds. We were surrounded by computers and telephones and a whole host of modern technology. It was only at the end of the meeting that we realised that this in fact was the nuclear safety control centre and that was why it was so well equipped.
The Commission's proposed solutions to the problems that we found are to have fewer and larger contracts to western consultancies. We were firmly of the opinion that the small projects that we saw which built up individual trust in relationships were the ones that were successful. We were not happy about the way

1305
that funds are constantly circulated to western consultants and we felt that they do not have a great deal of effect within Russia or the other countries.
We were particularly impressed by the enthusiasm of some of the individuals that we met in NGOs and also the young manager of the water treatment plant at St. Petersburg who had been attached for several weeks or months to organisations in this country. We believe that the system of transfers and exchanges of individual experts in that way is the most promising way forward. We were also impressed by the small-scale so-called "Bistro" projects where funding could be arrived at with rapidity and be directly relevant to what was needed rather than the sometimes two or three-year timelag in getting other projects off the ground.
We were also impressed by those involved in the city-to-city projects where local authority officials with specific expertise in areas such as public transport or sewerage systems had built up relationships over many exchange visits with their counterparts in particular Russian cities. It is that development of trust and individual knowledge that seems to underlie the successful projects. In fact the leitmotif of our inquiry was the question of trust and distrust.
There remains the ghost of the Cold War distrust of each other hovering over many of the projects. In Russia and the Ukraine there was a natural suspicion of the motives of westerners and the assumption that there is an element of triumphalism, particularly relating to aid from the United States, which they bitterly resent. They have of course also been reared in a dictatorship, which makes them distrustful of authority, and in a command economy where on the whole orders came from above, and they have little experience of taking personal responsibility.
Many of the new colonialist attitudes of western consultants and western nations, and the tendency of western consultants to produce inappropriate remedies for their problems, have not helped. In fact, democracy and market economy are now insulting words in many quarters in Russia.
In the European Commission also there was considerable suspicion as to what may be happening to European funds. They are naturally worried about being criticised, but the consequence is that there are enormous bureaucratic controls, a reluctance to take risks and a fear of the sprawling confusion of the NIS and the possibility of Mafia corruption. The consequence is that the Commission in Brussels goes to ridiculous lengths with an excessive reliance on paperwork and on monitoring units in the Ukraine and Russia which rely essentially on ticking boxes on pieces of paper which are then sent to Brussels. They are placed on files which I am sure no one ever reads, but the system provides the comfort of the feeling that the situation is being monitored.
In the Ukraine, for example, there are 40 staff; 20 are western Europeans, 20 are local Ukranians. They are all responsible for monitoring the Tacis projects, not only in the Ukraine but also in Belarus and in Moldova. But having 40 people doing nothing but allegedly evaluating the projects in those countries seems an excessive use
1306
of Commission resources. Of course I have considerable experience of working in an elaborate and over-anxious bureaucracy and am familiar with the sense of comfort there is in building up a large file about something. But it does not mean that anyone ever reads it or that it actually serves any useful purpose.
The recent eco-scandals in relation to other aspects of European aid where money was diverted from the actual practical projects into payment for administrative staff is another indication, as we noted in the PHARE report, that the Commission does not have enough staff to manage projects properly and therefore has to resort to mechanistic form-filling or to hiving off its responsibilities to western consultancy firms, or to forms of creative accounting. Far better in my view, and I believe that of most members of our committee, that small amounts of western money should be siphoned off through fraud on a proportion of small projects in Russia than these over-elaborate attempts to control large projects to little end.
The Government's response to our report, which was received last month, is generally positive and welcoming, though reservations were expressed about the viability of small programmes and the Commission's need for more staff. One of our recommendations was that Tacis should have a comprehensive database of programmes of aid, with evaluation data of those programmes already completed. It is astonishing that there is no such proper comprehensive database so that they can look back at their past projects and examine them and from that learn to proceed to future projects. Also included in that comprehensive database should be the other forms of aid which are being given by various organisations such as the EBRD and also bilaterally to individual countries such as the know-how fund. At present, none of the donors actually knows what other projects are being funded. There is a considerable possibility of overlap, duplication and indeed gaps between funding.
Present knowledge of other aspects of funding and liaison seem to be dependent on individuals going to meetings about every two or three months and having ad hoc conversations about what other aid is being given. That does not seem to be a very organised way of developing aid, either to Eastern Europe or Russia, or indeed to other parts of the world. I have asked the Minister to give us the Government's view on this particular point, which was not covered in their original response. We welcome the Government's intention to ensure that the environment does not get squeezed out of the new Tacis regulation and their recognition that,
"economic policy reforms … can contribute to environmental improvement".
In a stressed and over-populated world with increasing levels of disparity between rich and poor, it is very important that we do all we can to reduce economic disparity and to increase democratic accountability. Unless we establish common standards of health and wealth and a pollution-free and thriving environment, the world will continue to become more degraded and more subject to political violence; and, indeed, to wars, probably, in the future, over water and scant resources.
It is a matter of enlightened self-interest to promote standards such as these, not only in eastern Europe and in Russia but also in other parts of the world as markets for our own goods, to put it at its lowest level, but also, at its highest level, to ensure that there is peace in the world and that we can obtain Russian assistance in places such as Serbia and Kosovo to ensure that the world continues.
Finally, I should like particularly to thank our Clerk, Tom Radice, who put together our splendid report and who was also responsible for the splendid photograph on its front cover. I should also like especially to thank our adviser, Mr. Andrew Convey, for arranging the Russian translation of part of our report, which we see as importantly symbolic of our recommendation that Russia and the other states should be treated as equal partners and not as dependent clients. I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Partnership and Trust: the Tacis Programme (33rd Report, Session 1997–98, HL Paper 157).—(Baroness Hilton of Eggardon.)
8.2 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I envy and admire all those who are responsible for this most interesting and valuable report. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, for giving us the opportunity to debate it. It has many lessons for us which apply and have applied for a long time to the operations of the European Union in general. First, perhaps I may say that I agree with the report's claim that,
"the value of Tacis, as a means of building trust and mutual respect and as a vehicle for sharing know-how, may well outweigh many of the shortcomings of policy and administration to which attention is drawn in this report".
The measure of its success is the quotation from Mrs. Sue Mullan, European Service Manager, Southampton City Council, who said:
"One of the things they said at the very end of the project was, 'You didn't give us the fish but you gave us the net with which we could catch the fish'".
That struck me as very significant.
The report is full of fascinating accounts of the varied activity being carried out under the aegis of Tacis in the newly independent states (NIS). About them I shall only say that I strongly agree with the committee's preference for grass-roots participation, twinning, the building of trust between individuals, and the expansion of smaller programmes, with the people at the bottom of the heap having nowhere to go but up. After all, this is what subsidiarity should mean. The title that the committee has given to the report, Partnership and Trust, says it all.
As the report makes clear, one of the most important things that Tacis can do is to give the peoples of the NIS confidence in their capacity to shape their own lives—a position which would be the very antithesis of the command economy under which they lived for so long.
1308
For that, they need skills, and horizontal as well as vertical thinking: they have to believe that we and they are equals in the same world.
One of the most significant and positive things that the committee has done is to have its opinions—essentially its recommendations to Parliament—translated into Russian, so that the people whom they have met, and all those involved in the Tacis programmes in the NIS, may read them and, presumably, respond. I hope that they will. At the very least, this is a lesson in transparency and in subsidiarity.
However, much of the value of Tacis will be lost if the peoples of the NIS encounter in Brussels the very same faults of opacity, incompetent management, bureaucracy, sometimes croneyism, and even a degree of corruption, with which they have been all too familiar at home in the past and which Tacis purports, in promoting good governance, to be there to eradicate.
The committee, rightly, stresses the importance of reviewing and strengthening staff resources and competence, notes that there are too many generalists in DG1A, the responsibility directorate; and argues for more and better training. In arguing also for the need for the new Common Service Directorate to devise,
"a coherent and seamless relationship between monitoring and evaluation".
it is arguing for the need for really competent staff to carry that out. The Commission has always inclined in the past to skimp on permanent staff at the working level who are actually well informed enough to implement policy and to manage resources; and who stay there long enough to achieve both continuity and expertise. Quite a small core of long-serving and expert staff could go far to avert the delays and, indeed, total inertia which have afflicted so many ambitious and worthy new projects.
As Mr. Erkki Liikanen, the commissioner responsible for budgets, told Sub-Committee A on 26th January this year:
"When we analysed the situation in 1997 we found we had 47 different procedures for applications for external aid. Why so? Actually it was not always invented by the Commission. For instance, when the Commission proposed a Tacis regulation for Russia to make the procedures simpler and clearer, some southern countries wanted to make it more complicated. When we have a programme in the south, the northern countries may do exactly the same. The whole regulation can become so complicated it just cannot function. Then they want to create committees and so forth. So we had 47 different procedures, a huge number of committees, and everybody is happy, and travels, but nothing functions".
Fortunately, he went on to add that there was now a joint service for external programmes and that it might be possible to cut the procedures from 47 to seven, but then it was going to take between 18 and 24 months to get the revised regulations through the Council.
Fortunately, I note from the report of the committee, (HL Paper 23) on reforming comitology that there is only one comitology committee dealing with Tacis, the Tacis Management Committee, which met five times in 1997, reviewing Tacis operations. Perhaps I may point out that many of the comitology committees of the EU, in a list covering 62 pages, did not meet at all in 1997. I hope that the Tacis committee's deliberations were useful.

1309
One of the problems which so extensive a programme presents is the great diversity of peoples and situations in the countries of the NIS, as the report points out. They range from the very sophisticated, mostly urban, to the people in the remote country areas. While I agree that, because of the collapse of the whole Soviet bureaucratic highly centralised machinery of government, there is a strong case, as the new draft Council regulation (Corn (98) 753. Final) argues, for Tacis to move towards the reinforcement of democracy and the development of good governance, I believe that the Commission is wrong to wish to concentrate on high level policy advice and on large projects and that it is in some danger of hopelessly over-extending its remit in moving now to,
"institution building, social welfare and the rule of law".
It contemplates dealing with the social consequences of transition, including restructuring the social welfare system. As the Committee of Independent Experts on Fraud and Mismanagement says:
"The Commission has been transformed from an institution which devises and proposes policy into one which implements policy".
In effect, it is proposing to take on a kind of colonial administration's role and is, I fear, about as well fitted to do it as Belgium was to manage the Congo.
The committee's instinct, with which I whole-heartedly agree, is for,
"a very practical, pragmatic, individual approach which respects the people we wish to help".
It is exemplified by twinning, by attaching individuals to Western organisations, by small projects building from below or providing specific expertise and by local initiatives which involve citizens in improving their own environment. Every instance the report gives of the personal experience of such bodies as the Mendip District Council reinforces that view.
I digress for a moment to mention the important issue of the environment. I find it frightening to read that radioactive pollution affects 9 million people in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus. Incidentally, according to a recent report from Novaya Zemlya, 120,000 tonnes of first-generation chemical weapons dating from World War II are buried in that region with disastrous effects on the health of the people. This is quite apart from the 40,000 tonnes of second-generation chemical weapons not yet disposed of. But as all those were part of the military chemical complex, little is known of the consequent damage to the environment and to health. I hope that Tacis will be able to pursue this.
The committee has identified another aspect of the Brussels environment in which DGIA operates which is only too familiar to us all; namely, the dangers of a lack of transparency. As the committee says, the directorate itself is remote, understaffed and lacking in transparency. This too will be all too familiar to many of the citizens of the former Soviet Union in particular. It must be fought and the committee's Recommendation 4 recognises that. Lack of transparency in its turn will foster suspicions of cronyism, if not corruption. Russians are sensitive and proud; they are also shrewd and they will observe the Commission closely. It is deeply unfortunate that the very size and complexity of
1310
the Commission makes it so difficult—even if the will is there—to make its fiscal credentials credible. It has been so obvious for so long that money is being mismanaged, at the least, and that will destroy confidence, not least that of the taxpayers of the EU. Our own contribution to the EU is £8 billion after abatement, yet we have little idea of what we are paying for, although I fervently hope that the new scrutiny committee will change that.
However, it is still deeply shocking that there have been major reports on financial control and fraud in the Community from this House in 1989 and 1994, all calling for the regulations to be simplified, for effective internal controls to be established, and for better training of staff. In 1994 a Treasury official actually believed that UCLA, the anti-fraud unit, was,
"powerful and determined to carry out DGXX's audit function".
As recently as 26th May last year, member states signed the convention on the fight against corruption involving officers of the European Community and officials of the member states of the EU. But, as a former British member of the Court of Auditors said as far back as 1994, and as the Committee of Independent Experts confirmed in its March 1999 report,
"the single biggest problem about financial management in the Community today is the lack of accountability at senior level in pretty well all the institutions of the EU".
That report also incidentally reinforces the committee's views on the dangers of too many temporary, short-term and agency staff, and about the evil effects of opacity in tendering. It is a sorry commentary on the elephantine, or perhaps I should say "sloth-like", progress of the Commission, even on the vital issue of the public perception of its integrity, that it took a courageous whistle-blower in late 1998 to get an inquiry set up. We have yet to see whether any action will be taken. Tacis is clearly a most valuable programme. It would be ironic indeed if it were to suffer from the very bureaucracy, lack of transparency and sheer inefficiency which were prime causes of the collapse of the social and economic structure of the former Soviet Union.
In the present rather fragile state of European relations with the Russians, it is important to retain their confidence. I think the report should be required reading for all diplomats intending to serve in the area, and perhaps for all new EU commissioners.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and Sub-Committee C on this report. I am not a member of that sub-committee although I am a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities, My interest in NIS countries and eastern Europe stems from my interest in rail freight travelling, east and west. I lived in eastern Europe for a time.
This is an excellent report. The cover is fantastic. All the statistics on the inside back page are useful for someone who has not heard the evidence. They give a snapshot of the challenges facing those countries and members of the EU which seek to assist them.

1311
Like my noble friend Lady Hilton I was concerned at the attitude of triumphalism and of patronising western consultants preaching. I was also struck by a sense of a lack of management. I am worried by this lack of empathy with local conditions and a professional approach as seen through western eyes which does not recognise the strong professional background of many people in the countries concerned, especially as regards engineering and the environment. I suppose I would say that as an engineer, but engineers are greatly respected outside this country. The attitude of the consultants smacks to me of old as well as new colonialism. We should condemn that in the strongest possible terms. However, I welcome the policy of technical assistance through partnership and I hope that this report will help to achieve that.
I wish to say a few words about transport, as the transport and telecommunications infrastructure is one of the six priority areas of the report. As we know in this country, transport and the environment are inextricably linked. The NIS countries, as in eastern Europe, have relied on railways for trade and travel for many decades. There was not much travel in times past, but freight was, and is, the big key to increasing industrial production in accordance with former national plans. It should have been the key to distribution although it did not always work very well. I believe that in the near future people in these countries will expect to own their own cars, and possibly trucks. Who are we to condemn people who want to own their own cars? In the future, they will probably be able to buy a car for an amount less than three years' net salary. When I lived in Romania the price was equivalent to three years' salary before tax. No government can deny people the use of their own cars or the ability to purchase them. However, problems will arise in relation to the state of the roads.
The story of railways and freight in these countries has a horribly familiar ring to it. I regret to say that this story applies to western Europe as well as to central and eastern Europe and NIS countries. Often railways fail to adapt to competition and the market economy. We hear stories all the time of unchanged working practices, countries being slow to introduce new technology, and lack of investment. As a market economy develops, rail freight becomes more complex, more expensive and probably more unreliable. It is the sad truth that railways in many parts of the world have tended to ignore the needs of their customers. However, with the introduction of the market economy in these countries, anyone will be able to buy a lorry and offer a door-to-door freight service with better reliability, and one that is probably cheaper than the railways. That is private enterprise. Whether that is private enterprise at its best or worst is debatable. The problem with that, however, is that the roads will not be able to support the volume of traffic.
We need to inquire whether the special consultants and advisers under the Tacis programme will advise the governments concerned to invest in massive road building. Will they advise them to close the railways because they can no longer compete as they are failing to reduce costs? People in these countries may still
1312
believe that the state will direct freight on to rail, but that will not be the case. Massive subsidies are paid to the railways in those countries, but the railways will carry less and less traffic. Governments will be short of money and will cut subsidies. Lines will then be closed and land will be sold off. That is what British Rail has done since the war and it is what some of the European Union railways have started to do now. It is a course that some of the central and eastern European countries are considering.
I hope that part of the Tacis programme will be to advise countries which have not yet started the process to think very carefully before they do start. I do not know whether in a market economy a subsidised railway, unchanged since the days of a planned economy, will ever compete with deregulated lorries, but the advice has to be given. We must say to them, "Do not follow what we have done regardless of local conditions".
A Member of your Lordships' House, a very eminent former Minister in the previous government, is, I believe, participating in offering advice around the world on how to privatise the railways—as we did such a great job in this country! I would question whether that would be good advice to give to NIS countries, regardless of who the owner should be. The best advice would be, "Let us have level playing fields. If you are building roads, make people pay for using them"—as we may do here—and, "If you are building railways, make people do that as well". Let us have some proper advice based on our best practice in this country.
The Commission is at present trying to introduce changes to the working time directive. It has advised—I fear, although I hope I am wrong, that the Government will go along with this—that the railways should be included but owner/drivers of lorries should be excluded because it is too difficult. If that is the case, we shall find that in two years' time every lorry driver will be an owner/driver and he will then be able to load his lorry for six hours and drive for eight hours. He will still be within the limit, but he will have been working for 14 hours; and he might be tired and not quite so good. That is what the Commission is proposing—I do not know why; we can debate it—but let us not pass that advice on to the NIS countries.
We should possibly look at some of the advice. Do we separate infrastructure on the railways? The Commission is advising and requiring everyone to do so. If it is to be subsidised, I say, "Let us keep the road and rail subsidies the same". Should NIS countries introduce competition? We have competition in Britain but not in the rest of the European Union. So what is the advice from the European Union to NIS members? Is the advice to close lines and to sell off land? As I have said, we regret it here. Mothball it perhaps, but let us have some modernisation. Let us modernise those railways, Just as we are going to modernise our railways. Let us advise them to do both, with the same investment and choosing technology that is appropriate to their stage of development. There is no point in closing all the signal boxes in Russia and saying that the system should be run from Moscow because that would

1313
save so many jobs. That is not the objective. Whether it is the objective in this country is debatable; it certainly is not sensible in NIS countries.
Let us allow the rail operating companies to perform the drastic human surgery required to reduce staff numbers and become competitive. That has not yet happened in continental Europe. It will be long and it will be painful. We have not yet finished in this country; nor has the European Union. In a market economy, those countries cannot continue to have the railways as part of the social security arm of the state. It does not work. French train drivers retire at 50 on full pay—that is great—but lorry drivers do not. There are many other situations like that. How many productive hours are worked in a day? The advice has to be appropriate.
I believe that the programme has an enormous potential to lead and advise NIS countries of the direction that they might follow, but I have serious concern about who is giving the advice, the basis of the advice and whether the advisers are saying, "We have done it at home this way, that way or the other way". We in the EU are not in a very good position to give advice on transport matters. Commissioner Kinnock told the EU railways a year ago, "Change quickly and you will have a great future. Stay as you are, and you will not survive long". If that advice is applicable to parts of the EU, how much more appropriate it is to NIS members. But we cannot say that we are doing it right.
The report will be of enormous assistance to those who want to help NIS countries from within and without. I love the partnership approach and I hope that the report will be read with great interest and be adhered to by those in the Commission and the member state governments who are charged with developing and implementing the programme.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Cromwell: My Lords, I should like to start by welcoming this very interesting and wide-ranging report. I have worked on and off with Tacis for the past six years and I certainly recognise many of the committee's findings in my own experience. I am also currently involved as a small contractor on several Tacis projects and I therefore declare a substantial practical interest.
I should like to make four points. My first concerns local—by which I mean NIS—non-government organisations. The DfID submission to the committee was correct in saying that local organisations are generally weak and have poor project preparation skills. I would add that they are also mainly run on a voluntary basis, seldom have any funds to speak of and are only very dimly aware of opportunities for donor funding. This is mainly a reflection of the short time-scale over which they have developed and is not evidence of any lack of ideas or lack of enthusiasm.
For such organisations, accessing donor funding is a daunting exercise. They are unfamiliar with the funding process, which, with its cycles, jargon and diversity of formats, has a culture of its own. A lack of proposal writing and lobbying skills is, since donors still in practice tend to work in western languages,
1314
compounded by a lack of language skills. If the local NGO sector is to benefit from donor involvement—and this point goes well beyond Tacis—then donors need to support the development of local NGOs' capacity to formulate and present well structured and practical project proposals. In order to achieve this, Tacis mechanisms and working practices need to change.
Effective involvement of NGOs requires specific programmes designed and managed in ways which improve the ability of NGOs to connect successfully with donors while at the same time building the donor's ability to work with NGOs. NGOs must not be excluded from engaging with Tacis by the cost, complication and slowness of application procedures. But, equally, they must not be swamped with money and over-ambitious programmes by over-eager donors—a recipe which has destroyed many initially successful NGOs the world over.
My second point concerns the role of external NGOs and smaller companies. I note the committee's interest in greater involvement of western NGOs and smaller organisations in Tacis programmes. There are Tacis facilities for NGO funding, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the practical demands of pursuing such funding. Grant funding or co-funding can take a year or more to obtain and involve on-going lobbying efforts as well as requiring the applicant to keep prices, staff and so forth on hold for long periods. It also requires project partners' enthusiasm and faith in the funding process to be sustained, often for month after month.
Bidding for the larger projects which are put out to competitive tender requires a considerable effort even for large organisations and is estimated to cost between £5,000 and £10,000 a time. Even the winning organisation cannot recover these costs, and unsuccessful bidders, especially if they are relatively small organisations, tend to feel that the cost and effort involved is not worth the risk, and they give up.
In a commercial tendering environment that might be acceptable. A relatively small circle of the wealthiest companies, which might at least claim to be the best resourced to carry out the tasks involved, will be left in the ring. However, awarding finance on the basis of "To those that have shall be given" will not lead to the development of an active and diverse NGO landscape. As with local organisations, so working with external NGOs requires a different approach from dealing with commercial consulting companies.
Evidence given to the committee suggested that western NGOs could join consortia led by larger consulting companies in bidding for projects. That does happen; but I would ask your Lordships' to consider that tagging along behind a large consulting company, whose raison d'être may be very different from the NGOs', is a poor substitute for developing and implementing projects with an NGO focus and an NGO ethos.
I should not, however, wish to suggest unremitting criticism or doom and gloom; and that brings me to my third point. Tacis includes some excellent programmes. Stories of bureaucracy and delay in Tacis are not hard to find, but it is naïve to compare Tacis too

1315
unfavourably with, for example, bilateral programmes. Tacis certainly has no monopoly on delay and bureaucracy.
The Tacis "Bistro" programme is a very positive example of a relatively simple, swift and accessible funding line available within the CIS countries. Its success derives from being largely in the remit of the in-country EC delegations, where local staff and resident external staff can assist and advise in project development. I note from the report, however, that it remains consistently underspent. Perhaps some of the reasons for that are in my two previous points about lack of NGO access. The programme's only other practical shortcoming lies in the application of inflexible financing rules from Brussels, a subject to which, with your Lordships' indulgence, I shall return shortly.
My final point concerns the use and development of CIS nationals. The committee's report emphasises the wealth of talent within the CIS. The report also warns, however, against assuming that highly intellectual and cultured societies—such as are widely found in CIS countries—are "at one" with western attitudes and aspirations. I am sure that the report is correct on both those points.
Development of local expertise should be a central aspect and justification of any western involvement. Developing that expertise requires not merely training but also opportunities to put training into practice. As regards the NGO sector, that means real avenues of financing for NGO activities. In the case of working with and bringing on individual CIS specialists, a realistic approach is needed to meeting the costs of engaging them. Perhaps I may provide a brief illustration of that point.
A common problem with Tacis programmes is that Brussels insists on unrealistic and substantial differentials between living allowances granted to local and external specialists. That outdated approach leads to situations in which project team members are unable to take meals together or even to stay in the same hotel, due to the financial gulf between them. That does very little to develop good working relationships or respect, or to support the transfer of know-how between team members. I sincerely apologise for taking up the House's time with such a prosaic illustrative detail. However, it is exactly that kind of anomaly which hinders the proper participation of local specialists in projects intended to develop their countries. Tacis needs to address such anomalies if it is serious about increasing the roles, availability and impact of local specialists.
In conclusion, I feel that Tacis does much successful work and, while it is not yet as effective as it should be in the areas that I have attempted to describe, we should learn from Tacis' successes as well as its shortcomings. Where problems are overcome, it is often due to the local knowledge, initiative and goodwill of in-country EC delegation staff—a model which could be used far more widely.
It is easy to engage in "Brussels bashing" and I am glad that the report sought a balance between identifying
1316
areas of frustration and reflecting on the difficult path which Tacis has to tread between financial accountability and flexible responsiveness to emerging needs. I congratulate the committee on a very interesting and illuminating report, which I look forward to discussing with my friends both in Tacis and in the CIS.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, we have heard a superb speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, the chairman of the committee on which I was privileged to serve. This was, as she described, an opportunity to influence a far-reaching report being formulated by the European Commission on the future of Tacis. We have read in our committee's report vividly and beautifully written descriptions by our Clerk, Tom Radice, of the quality of the environment of the former Soviet Union and its immense significance to the rest of the world.
Concern for the environment is not only central to the development of democracy and civil society and to protection of the consumer; it is also vital to successful economic transformation. The transition from command to market economies in the NIS is a painful process. There are immediate needs to be met: jobs; money; food. Hazardous fumes from the local factory do not yet lead local residents to demand its closure as they want the factory to stay there because they need to work in it. So there is a long-term challenge. But a new generation cometh, with new expectations. On our fact-finding visit we met many young people, mainly women, who were already taking up opportunities and creating an environment of which their parents, just a few years ago, could hardly have dreamed.
Our evidence gathering and our visit to Kiev in the Ukraine, Moscow and St. Petersburg showed us that the European Union's Tacis programme, with all the faults that have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has plainly been beneficial—in particular in helping to build trust and mutual respect between western Europe and the newly independent states.
However, even eight years after the command economy came to an end, it is still not a simple task for people to break free from their institutional and social straitjacket. The technically qualified managerial class has yet to come to terms with taking responsibility as opposed to following orders. Tacis must have as its priority the management of change in that area—but with pre-visit briefings on the culture and the language for outside experts to arrive with, in order to avoid, as we heard described to us, putting everyone's back up on day one with European and, worse, American "business school management-speak".
Tacis has done a great deal to stimulate environmental awareness and the capacity of people to be involved in a host of social and environmental issues at grass roots level. Although our committee warmly welcomes the general tone of the Government's response to the report, there is one area where I would ask the Government to be clearer in their support of the "people-to-people"

1317
policy. They seem to be proposing to support a greater emphasis on larger programmes in their response to the ECC report. I question, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, and my noble friend Lady Park, whether an increased number of large-scale, high profile initiatives accompanied by a limited number of small-scale initiatives is the right way forward. The visits and the evidence in our report lead me to press in favour of smaller projects and their growing importance and the vital role of the non-governmental organisations and the consumer groups with which I am involved.
Initiatives such as "city twinning" have already been referred to. I refer also to the locally named "Bistro" projects. It was only when I was in Russia that I learnt that "bistro" was a Russian word. The Russian émigrés who had rushed over to Paris and had to find something to do opened up quick food restaurants. That is where the word comes from. It is marvellous that they own that word; it is their own. Naturally the projects are hugely successful. They are local initiatives; they come together quickly; they can be run by local people and transferred easily, town to town, street to street, village to village. It is ownership of the best kind. The local European Union delegation has much more discretion in relation to these small projects than it does in relation to larger projects to hand out the money and approve them.
In one area, people came together to run a local market. The project was described to us: how to manage a local market; how to get the traders together with their stalls; wholesaling; distribution; the routes to market; the transportation; then the shared profit; the retained profit; the reinvestment; and even more, the planning for the future.
I cannot stress strongly enough the enthusiasm of people at a local level to learn how to take ownership of their lives. I suspect that local consumer groups, already now learning how to manage and campaign through the media and the press and how to lobby their parliament for the health of their families, will promote democracy faster through their groundswell than ever will the vast programmes we have heard about, where limited groups of contractors can go in and take the contracts. We heard awful stories: as soon as they have got the contract they send in their least experienced people because their most experienced people do not want to work out of their host country for these long periods of time. That leads to local corruption.
It does not seem to me that that is the place to start. The future of this vast area of our globe, 15 per cent of the land mass, is in its people's courage and confidence to embrace a new and unknown future. The closer the Tacis programmes can get to those people, the more chance there is of successful democratisation of a new kind which will take responsibility for its own environmental programmes by Russia, by those newly independent states. It will look, therefore, to our safeguard, to our future and to the safety of all of us. I commend the report to the House.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, as a member of the committee speaking so late, I believe that most points have been made. Once again I thank our chairman of the inquiry for the wonderful way in which she so gently and firmly guided us all. I especially thank Tom Radice for organising us and Andrew Convey, our specialist adviser. We made a wonderful team and, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and myself, we were the group who went to Russia.
There are two aspects of my experience of going to Russia and meeting people that I wish to share with your Lordships tonight. They are the concept of person-to-person contact, on which many have touched, and, arising from that, the problems of Russian NGOs and their status. I particularly welcomed the speech of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, because it was unsolicited. It was wonderful. If he had been on the committee he could have made it and got away with it, it was such a good speech. From someone not even on the committee, it was delightful, confirming everything that I am afraid we discovered.
We chose the title of the report carefully. It suggests that help to the former Soviet Union is a partnership and that both sides have a great deal to contribute. Talking person to person is one of the best ways of resolving problems. It might not be inappropriate to suggest at this moment that our Prime Minister's dash to America last night for a little person-to-person chat with President Clinton and Viktor Chernomyrdin's visit to President Milosevic today may do a lot more than any other forms of communication between leaders in the present Kosovo crisis. It is an example of person-to-person contact which we hope will resolve matters.
Under the Tacis range of agreements, it is very important to have various forms of discussion. Twinning of NGOs and local authorities and exchanges between universities could lead to a greater understanding between the EU and the former Soviet Union. It is also vitally important to understand the Russian character and Russian aspirations, not the least of which is to appreciate that they have much to offer us. That is one of the reasons we decided that the main points of our report would also be produced in Russian. I have a copy in front of me, I cannot read it and I cannot prove that it is correct. However, publishing one of our reports in Russian is another first for this House. It is an innovation of which the committee is proud.
I am, therefore, slightly concerned about the Government's response. The proposed regulation does not appear to be reinforcing the person-to-person policy. By placing greater emphasis on the larger projects, there are bound to be many people and organisations talking to each other rather than persons. I do not quite understand what the Government mean by,
"There are fewer opportunities for the UK public sector than other members of the EU".
In paragraph 64 of our report we mention but four extremely close exchanges with co-operation between, for example, Moldova and the Hampshire County Council. It is interesting that someone in Hampshire, attempting to try to work out the traffic problems of

1319
Basingstoke, was approached by Moldova which is frightened that more cars may cause problems. What a lovely clean sheet to start with! Hampshire people must have been very envious.
In the Government's response to our Recommendation 6—again, on the small versus the large-scale initiatives—we are very much in favour of the small-scale projects which involve local NGOs and give rise, at very little cost, to such actions as environment awareness days and setting up the libraries with environmental information in book, video and CD-ROM form. Those projects are essentially aimed at children and are the kind of thing I have been attempting to do in England in the past 10 years. We hope that in Russia in the long run it will produce a new generation of environmentally aware adults.
However, there are other forms of aid to the former Soviet Union. We have already heard that such organisations there are not well co-ordinated. You just happen to hear that someone is giving something to someone. There are many instances of money coming in from the Baltic states. It is important that the whole of the Baltic states' environment is kept roughly under control, Russia being the problem. There is money coming in from the US—we have heard that it comes in in a conquering way—and from Germany, which I am sure is genuinely keen to help. It also comes from our own Know-How Fund. I ask the Minister this tonight: if the EU is to take on bigger projects, could our Government look to the small projects, as they have in the past with our Know-How Fund? That is one of the ways in which we can make progress.
The point I wish to make about the Russian NGOs is one which we can do nothing about, I am afraid. It is just that they operate under a totally different system from NGOs as we know them. They are at least beginning to be recognised by the authorities in Russia; they are not just looked on as being rather subversive and difficult organisations. We may make remarks about Friends of the Earth on occasions, but we accept that our NGOs in Europe are helpful. I want the Russians to get it right.
However, the problem is that they cannot operate under the type of charity laws that we have in this country. In particular, they have to pay tax on any money they raise. That makes their financial viability less easy. I hope that over a period of time this will improve and that Russia and the other members of the former Soviet Union will introduce charity laws under which NGOs can work and tax systems which will be helpful to them.
Finally, the report is one of the most interesting and stimulating that the sub-committee has produced. If the Soviet Union is to recover from the appalling environmental state it has got into, co-operation, partnership and trust are the name of the game.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I, too, would like to congratulate my noble friend on her chairmanship of the sub-committee. I should also
1320
particularly like to congratulate her on the colour map, which was a great addition to the report. My views can be summed up by a particular quote. I very much appreciated the inclusion of various quotes throughout the text because it brought the report alive. It was so much easier to concentrate, if that is the right word, although it was an easy report to read anyway. Perhaps I may read just a little of the quote which summed up my view. It is from Mr. Guy de Selliers, who is chairman of Flemings Eastern Europe. He said,
"Our basic recommendation is to reorientate the objectives of the Tacis Programme from the broad objectives of the past—support for democracy and market economy—to a more pragmatic objective of promoting concrete activities which can lead to mutually beneficial co-operation between NIS institutions and their counterparts in the EU".
That really sums up my view about the reorientation of the Tacis project.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, gave an extremely good speech. I congratulate him on his tenacity in managing a number of projects with Tacis funding. In my previous job I applied for both World Bank funding and Tacis funding. I gave up on both counts. I found that it was diverting too much attention from what I was trying to do in running the company with which I was involved. I congratulate the noble Lord on his tenacity.
I wish to concentrate on two areas arising from that quotation; namely, the administration of the Tacis programme and its integration with other international bodies. The word "monitoring" translates as "control" in Russian. Russians know about control only too well. They are extremely suspicious of it. I believe that accounts for the reluctance of many of the Russians who are part of the Tacis programme about whom I have read and to whom I have spoken directly. They are somewhat resentful of the monitoring or control of their programmes. The whole essence of this report is the balance between proper accountability for EU funds and allowing some freedom of action for people to use their initiative and to develop their skills in managing money in creative ways.
The word "consultant" has become something of a dirty word, in this report as well as in Russia. I have been a consultant in my time. I have certainly employed many consultants. When we applied for the funding which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech we aspired to being consultants at that stage. In my experience it is very difficult when employing people on vastly different wage levels. I was earning 50 times more than the Russian engineers with whom I was working. We were not quite as insensitive as to make my Russian colleagues and I use different flights and eat in different messes. We were all treated completely the same as regards working conditions. There was a massive differential in the amount we received for doing pretty much the same job.
It is somewhat simplistic and naive to say that the differential needs to be reduced, which it does. The reality is that the purpose of the Tacis programme is to change working and management practices in Russia. Having worked for nearly four years in a joint oil venture in Siberia, it is impossible to exaggerate the debilitating effects of a huge Russian bureaucracy and

1321
very entrenched Russian management practices. Even though I was employed as an engineer, my job was to try to change the way they ran their businesses. That is the purpose of the Tacis programme. Western consultants have something to offer. In fact, I go further and say that quite a few Western consultants nowadays have a great deal of experience of Russia and the former Soviet Union.
When we were managing the joint venture our experience was that the best way forward was to engage young Russians who were extremely capable. We gave them a lot of responsibility early in their working life. While the conditions were fairly harsh in that it was minus 40 degrees centigrade, they could earn a great deal of money over a few years and then go on to even more responsible jobs. In that manner we found our way around the problem of working effectively with Russians. Our answer was to use young people.
The phrase "people to people" has been used a number of times. It is absolutely right. The key to success concerns the personalities involved, commitment and your colleagues believing that you are there for the long haul, come hell or high water. In my view there is nothing else which really motivates people.
The second subject I wish to mention is the integration of the Tacis programme with other programmes and international and financial institutions. I am thinking of the EBRD, the World Bank, IFC and the multitude of bilateral aid programmes. I include the European Investment Bank, which does not invest in Russia. Perhaps it should think about that in the future.
There needs to be some idea of where the funding is coming from once the reports have been produced by Tacis. It causes tremendous resentment among the Russians that these bright ideas are dreamt up and the consultants then swan off back to their countries in the West, but the money is not there for implementing the ideas.
The reality of the Russian economy is, as I understand it, that about 60 per cent is a grey economy. I have heard the figure of 30 billion US dollars held in cash in Russia. It is quite wrong to equate that with massive corruption. It represents the total breakdown of the Russians' faith in their own banking system and institutions. There is a vibrant economy there, but it is totally undirected. There needs to he an institutional look at how to gain access to these funds and to channel them more constructively for the restructuring of Russia.
In conclusion, I wish to state the obvious; namely, that this involves a long haul. The Tacis programme has already invested in Russia over one billion ecus, which is about 1 billion dollars. It is a large-scale investment on a scale similar to that of the Marshall Plan, to which it was quite rightly compared. But I do not believe that it is constructive to engage in Brussels bashing, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said. We have to talk up success and change the Tacis programme. I was very privileged to take part in the preparation of this report. I am sure that it will go some way towards reorienting the long-term success of the Tacis programme.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it has been a very great pleasure to read this report. It is one of the best presented, most sensible and wisest reports that I have seen from any of the sub-committees of the Select Committee on the European Communities on which I had the privilege to serve for a period of time. I congratulate all those members of the sub-committee and not least the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, on what I believe is a remarkable achievement.
Having said that, I have to declare a rather bizarre interest. I am the president of an organisation called Project Liberty, now renamed Project Parity, which, since 1990, has worked very closely in central and Eastern Europe and more recently in Russia and the Ukraine encouraging, among other things, women to enter public life and to encouraging civil servants to understand the need to be responsible and responsive to their citizens. I am also a member of the board of one of the very few management institutes which is Ukranian-led, based in Kiev. It is the International Management Institute of Kiev. In case there are any Eurosceptics here I should say quickly that I am not paid in any capacity apart from a modest stipend when I spend a week at a seminar. This has always appeared to be rather surprising to Tacis, as are the extremely modest sums that we pay to those who lecture in these seminars which are deliberately kept to a minimum. I add that none of them is a consultant. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who is as nice a consultant as anyone can hope to meet.
I turn briefly to the report. I begin by echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, about the scale of the environmental disaster that still confronts Russia but also Ukraine and now to a lesser extent—thank God—central and eastern Europe. She mentioned her own experiences. I should like to give two other examples. First, whenever I go to Ukraine I am still warned that I must not go anywhere near the Pripet Marshes. Many noble Lords are aware that there are literally thousands of hectares of arable land still hopelessly poisoned and will not be able either to yield food or feed animals for many decades to come. It is a huge hole in the middle of the Belarus Ukraine and is a very rich area of arable land that has simply been written off for many generations to come by the Chernobyl accident. Many noble Lords will be aware that the second, third and fourth Chernobyl stations still show signs of being very dangerous and from time to time lead to alarms. They still have not been adequately modified to enable us to feel completely safe about their continuing use. That is not the only nuclear power station of which that is true.
The second example is the recent visit that I paid to Kharhiv in the Donbass in the east of Ukraine where all too often it is impossible to see out of the window because of the sheer volume of carbon dioxide in the air. That is a coal mining area where the abilities of the regional council are non-existent. It has no money, no resources and virtually no ability to deal with a disastrous environmental problem that is already

1323
profoundly affecting their children. It results in the very worst forms of lung disease, asthma and many other related complaints.
I very much commend the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, about management styles. She is absolutely right that we can learn a great deal from Russia and the NIS countries, but the management style certainly stands in the way. One reason for it was the overwhelming priority given to economic growth in virtually all circumstances under the communist regimes in those countries where effectively growth was not qualified by any sense of the input or quality of product but the sheer need to show that one was meeting production norms. That meant that an institutionalised attitude grew up to the misuse and abuse of resources.
I believe that the United Kingdom and the EU can play an immense part in bringing to bear our expertise in the field of energy conservation and the control and use of electronic devices to minimise energy use. Even today the NIS countries and Russia are literally flinging away their finite resources in huge proportions because of their lack of adequate energy conservation measures.
I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. In a very inappropriate way I almost began to applaud what he said. When he referred to some of the purposes for which western consultants had been used I could not have agreed with him more. I provide only one example to complement what he said so interestingly about public transport and the railways. I have noticed that they run rather well in Russia; they are very effective and usually run on time.
I should like to add to his comments the totally ludicrous financing of consultants in the field of health privatisation. Those consultants went out to speak to countries which until recently had been characterised by a rather astonishing level of public health provision despite their relatively low per capita incomes. They certainly did not need to be told by us how to ensure that 50 per cent of their population would never have access to health again. We have been rather successful in getting that message across in central and eastern Europe. I pray that we totally fail to get it across in Russia and Ukraine especially given the conversion that Conservative colleagues have undergone in fully supporting the idea of a national health service.
I turn next to the issues raised in the report. I go through them quickly to save the time of the House. I could not agree more with what the report had to say about partnership. In our own Project Parity organisation we have always worked directly and closely with NGOs from local areas. We will not put on seminars unless we have the full support and involvement at every single planning stage of local NGOs, including the provision of lecturers and chair persons. In that way people feel that they own these seminars and we do not come with any sense of superiority or pride.
Partnership is indeed the name of the game. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, about the Bistro programme and the twinning of towns and local authorities with their counterparts in NIS
1324
countries and Russia. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, pointed out, this is one of the most effective ways in which we can help these countries. It brings about the people-to-people relationships that are so utterly crucial and the humility and learning that takes place on both sides of it.
I am a little frightened by the regulation. I very much agree with the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and others, about the emphasis placed on a very small number of subjects as a result of the reforms that are being made. I fear that it is perhaps the wrong—and bureaucratic—way to go.
I also add my great approval of the comments about respect for the skills and talents of the NIS communities, particularly in fields like engineering and the arts. These countries have a huge amount to contribute to us. At a time when they are going through a crisis of confidence it is vital that we recognise the huge achievements of Russia, Ukraine and other NIS civilisations not least in respect of the quality of their education. I am not even sure that we cannot in this country learn something about the quality of the science and technology education that has long been achieved in Russia and, for that matter, in much of central Europe. If one compares the results of their mathematics competitions with the rather pathetic results of British and, for that matter, American competitions in the same field one feels a proper sense of humility.
I wish also to underline what was said in the report about the need for the financial institutions, too, to learn these lessons. On a number of occasions they have done a rather bad job. I think in particular of the International Monetary Fund's handling of the last Russian crisis. It is important that they learn the lessons in the report and elsewhere.
We are beginning to see some light dawning. For the first time, on Monday, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which now has responsibility for investment in Russia, held a seminar at which environmental NGOs were not only present but also on the panel. That is the first seminar the EBRD has conducted, and the first at which an environmental NGO has been invited to come to give its opinion. Mr James Barnes of Friends of the Earth International was present and able to comment on some of the work of the IFI.
I echo what the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Ponsonby, said about the complexity of procedures. Those of us involved know that in many cases the best thing one can do if one wants to obtain a Tacis grant of some size is to employ a Brussels law office whose members have never been anyway near Russia or Ukraine. That cannot be right. Procedures which are so complex that one has to employ a lawyer in order to have the documents drawn up must be badly wrong. I know that the same is true of American foundations, but surely we could simplify the requirements laid down for contracts to be extended. We should also beef up the evaluation systems for projects once completed.
This is such a good report that I should like the committee to ask how best it might be disseminated. As the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, said, it is marvellous that

1325
it has been translated into Russian. That is a great achievement by the committee. I should like a copy of this report sent to every member of the environmental committee of the European Parliament, every member of the cabinet of the commission for the environment in the European Commission, and every member of the environmental committees of both Houses of this Parliament. One of the great tragedies about the marvellous work done by the Select Committee and its sub-committees in this House is that on the whole the reports are so little known once they have been completed. This report is one of several which deserve to he far more widely read and digested than is likely otherwise to occur.
As regards the Council's conclusion about the regulation, the Council of Ministers of the European Union, which represents member governments, pronounced itself wishing to set up a committee of member states to oversee the work of Tacis. Perhaps the Council of Ministers could have been just a little more visionary by suggesting that there should be a joint committee of donors and recipients along the lines of the overwhelmingly successful Marshall Plan. I fear that the provision of yet another committee to oversee with no input from the recipients is all too clear an example of what this committee has indicated: the superior attitude of Western powers towards those at the receiving end of the projects under Tacis. I strongly recommend that there should be at least occasional meetings of donors and recipients. Together they can make this a better programme, and one from which many more can benefit.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I shall be brief at this late stage as I believe we should all like to hear the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and her committee on a superb and comprehensive report which I have read with great interest and enjoyment. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said about it. I was especially interested as the former USSR was an area that I studied for many years.
This has been a most informative debate to which I listened carefully. The political events following the fall of the Berlin Wall brought enormous changes to the map of Europe. Within the area covered by this report, the former Soviet Union changed from one centralised state into a much larger number of autonomous states, based on the former states of the Soviet Union.
The new independent states faced and still face immense environmental problems. While partly derived from geography, those are largely the legacy of the Soviet period, as pointed out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Priorities must be the reduction of health risks, especially the provision of safe drinking water and tackling the worst problems of industrial pollution and hazardous waste. I remember speaking on the PHARE report when I mentioned the
1326
environmental horrors in Bulgaria which I had witnessed and which were much the same as we have heard today.
The Tacis programme was first conceived as far back as December 1990. The Council then decided that the European Union should support the then Soviet Union in two ways: by providing the know how; and by supplying humanitarian aid, with a budget of £280 million. Since its creation in 1991, it has evolved pretty rapidly over what is a relatively short period. In November 1996, a regulation marked a raising, of the profile of the environment in the Tacis range of programmes. That is of immense importance, as we have heard from several noble Lords this evening.
It has always been said when talking about the European Union that "the environment knows no frontiers". I think this is right. As with the PHARE programme, the inquiry revealed a considerable number of complexities.
We on these Benches support the Tacis initiative, especially in the context of the environment. Many of the countries in the region are sadly unable to give adequate importance to their environmental problems as they fundamentally lack the resources.
The role of the non-governmental organisations and the LIEN programme, to which the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Walpole, referred, is crucial. These are by their nature less cumbersome and probably less doctrinaire. They have a crucial place in the establishment of the institutions. Here, Tacis can play a key role, first in reassuring the governments of the countries that they have nothing to fear from the NGOs. They are often regarded with a great deal of suspicion, not unnaturally. The NGO was virtually an unknown phenomenon during the communist era. It is important that the NGOs are assisted by Tacis officials to help them to find their way about governments. I would support more use of local talent when possible—a thread that has run through all the speeches this evening.
I return to the central point, the environment. The challenge is huge. Perhaps it is the most visible of the dismal legacies of the communist era. The Tacis democracy programme which was launched by the European Commission in 1992 to help promote to democratic Russia is of vital importance I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lady Wilcox on the size of the programmes. It must be right to keep them closer to the people. "People-to-people projects" sounds a very good name to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, from his personal experiences, explained all too clearly the need for greater transparency and easier accessibility especially to applicants. This comes up with practically any project that comes from Brussels. It was mentioned by several noble Lords and needs attention. I have touched on just a fraction of this very comprehensive report.
Finally, we support this first-class report. The whole world wants to see Russia as well as the former Soviet republics stable, democratic and prosperous. It is not only essential for their people, but for the world too. We want this not from altruism; not even because we want to be able to trade goods and services with them in

1327
ever-increasing amounts; we want it because if there is no democracy and prosperity over this huge area of the world, the resulting lack of stability could pose great and continuing dangers for us all, as we are currently seeing only too vividly and tragically in former communist lands much closer to us.
The current Tacis regulation expires at the end of this year, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and a draft regulation for the period 2000–06 is now under consideration. According to the Secretary of State, the draft is broadly acceptable, but contains a number of new initiatives on which we are seeking clarification.
As I said, we on these Benches fully support the Tacis programme, despite some shortcomings which were clearly brought out in this excellent and comprehensive report.
But, Russia has her responsibilities too, towards both her neighbours and towards the industrial world that is working so hard and giving so generously to help her drag herself out of her miserable past. One of her responsibilities is her co-operation with the NATO allies during this very difficult and tense time in the present war with the former Republic of Yugoslavia and President Milosevic. News of the Russian Government aiding and abetting President Milosevic, putting serious pressure on former satellites, like Bulgaria, and trying to force them not to co-operate with NATO, is hardly the best way to encourage the European Union to extend the Tacis programme. Russia needs Tacis. It is an important programme, but not at any price.
9.20 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon, the chairman of the committee, for introducing tonight's important debate. I also thank other noble Lords who have contributed.
The Government have welcomed the very comprehensive report by the Select Committee on the European Communities on the Tacis programme, and in particular its fundamental conclusion that it will be essential to maintain and strengthen the position of environment as a priority area for Tacis.
The report is primarily about Tacis's response to the environmental challenge facing the region. But it also goes further and looks at the means employed by Tacis in implementing its programmes: its use of consultants; its procedures; its management structure; and internal resources. Those points were taken up by many noble Lords tonight. A good deal of attention is given to the bureaucratic systems which affect all Tacis activities. The report also considers ways of improving quality and transparency throughout the programmes, a point made by my noble friend Lady Hilton. Many of the report's conclusions match our own views about the ways Tacis might tackle its perceived shortcomings, as well as contributing towards a more coherent approach to environmental programmes.
There is no doubt that the states of the former Soviet Union face an immense environmental challenge. We have heard examples of the problems facing the region
1328
during the debate this evening. The legacy of unsustainable development under Soviet planning has left a huge burden of environmental degradation. This is reflected in the widening gap between health standards and life expectancy in western and former Soviet countries. It is also seen in the huge wastage of energy—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—water and other natural resources because of distorted pricing and poor environmental management.
Although economic decline in recent years has brought about a reduction in air and water pollution, there are still large volumes of municipal and industrial waste. Reforms and investments are now needed to ensure that economic recovery will take place in an environmentally sustainable way and that the great natural resources of the region are not destroyed.
My noble friend Lady Hilton referred to the importance of economic growth, but not, as she said, to the detriment of the environment. The DfID considers that economic reform, good government, the growth of civil society and the improvement of the environment are inseparably linked. It is no coincidence that the transition countries which have made most progress on the environment are those which have been in the forefront of economic and political reform. The slower pace of reform generally in the former USSR has been a significant brake on environmental improvement. In judging the performance of Tacis, we should keep in mind that many of the basic conditions for environmental progress are lacking in the countries in which it operates.
The scale of the problem is enormous and there is plenty of scope for all donors to play a part. The United Kingdom Government, in the 1997 White Paper, identified protection and better management of the environment as one of the aims of sustainable development, along with creating livelihoods for poor people and promoting human development. In Russia, for example, our allocated funding to the environment has increased by over 300 per cent since the White Paper, having risen from £600,000 a year to the current level of £2 million a year. This has allowed us to support a variety of new projects, including strengthening the management efficiency of the water utility in St. Petersburg; identifying and tackling the barriers to commercialising water services; and establishing a challenge fund to ensure that Russian environmental NGOs are fully involved in the transition process.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede made reference to the need for integration with other international institutions.
We take the view that Tacis should continue to retain its position as the principal technical assistance instrument within the region, but as a complementary part of a global system, which includes the international financing institutions; for example, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
We fully support the recommendations in the report for closer co-operation with other financing institutions and we shall press for environmental issues to be given higher priority in the new regulation for Tacis now

1329
being negotiated for the period 2000–06, and for the programme to be co-ordinated as much as possible with those of other donors.
Discussions on the new regulation have indicated that other member states share our concerns that due attention should be given to the environmental and social effects of transition. We are reasonably confident that we shall succeed in focusing the new regulation to that effect.
I turn now to some of the management issues which many noble Lords raised. The Tacis programme has attracted a good deal of criticism, some of it repeated this evening. There is criticism in the report, in the press, from the European Court of Auditors and by general repute. There is no denying that Tacis has been slow to implement programmes. Its unwieldy procedures have led to delays in engaging contractors and in launching projects. In many cases, project quality has been of questionable value and consultants have been frustrated by the inability of Tacis to adapt to changing circumstances and by delays in receiving payments.
Therefore, the Government welcome in particular the practical recommendations in the report. I am pleased to tell my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon that we consider the proposed database to be an excellent suggestion, although it should be noted that there is no shortage of publicly available information about Tacis programmes. Such information is available through the Tacis website and through Tacis publications, but overlap and duplication may be avoided by better co-ordination among donors. We have already been in contact with Tacis on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, mentioned the need to develop local capacity. The report also recommends that Tacis should become more transparent and accessible for would-be applicants and tenderers. It is obvious that emerging NGOs and other groups which we hope will shape and eventually transform civil society in the region in the future are put off by the complexity of the procedures.
The Department for International Development has a particular interest in the development of civil society organisations in transitional countries. In doing that, we also hope to build capacity. In our own bilateral programmes, we have been working with a range of new and more established organisations such as chambers of commerce, community groups, human rights organisations and lobbying groups, including those promoting environmental issues. We certainly support any moves to make Tacis more responsive to the needs of civil society stakeholders.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the need to use skills in the region, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, highlighted in particular the need for cultural sensitivity. The question of culture is fundamental and the report rightly highlights the need for awareness of local sensitivities.
We agree completely with the recommendation that donors should recognise the skills and experiences existing already in the region. We should work hard to
1330
build up trust and make greater use of NIS experts, a proposal recognised already in the draft of the new Tacis regulation.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, spoke about the importance of small projects, the need for support to local NGOs and people-to-people links. The Government agree that such links are crucial to building partnership and trust between NIS countries and Europe.
Tacis does not have comparative advantage in running small projects from Brussels, as many of your Lordships have rightly pointed out. The procedures are still too complex and slow. However, schemes run directly from EU delegations have been effective and much more flexible, as incidentally have many Know-How Fund schemes. That is why the Government support more devolution of responsibility for Tacis projects to EU delegations, especially working through local people.
I also want to join the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in commending the important work which Project Parity does with women. There are a number of ways in which Tacis could streamline its operations. The suggestions made of delegating more responsibility to in-country Tacis teams and involving field staff in project design and planning would have the effect of both speeding up project delivery and improving project quality, as would longer tours of duty to ensure better continuity of advice and project supervision.
We have always recognised that to a certain extent Tacis was constrained by the administration procedures imposed on it by the 1977 financial regulation, which governs all EC programmes, which are notoriously inflexible and bureaucratic. The Commission is planning a substantial review of the financial regulation this year. The UK is seeking to influence that process to ensure that the revised regulation allows for more effective and efficient systems, while still maintaining an appropriate degree of financial control and oversight to prevent fraud and mismanagement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, mentioned mismanagement. It is our view that the Commission could also institute substantial internal managerial reforms to improve the speed of delivery and quality of Tacis and other aid programmes within the constraints of existing procedures and staff resources.
Last month the Prime Minister set out in the other place a number of ideas on Commission management reform. The Government will work closely with Mr. Prodi and his new team to ensure that modernising Commission working practices is high on the reform agenda.
Now, more than ever, a complete overhaul of systems for approval, financial management and auditing of aid projects is needed, together with a new culture of accountability in the Commission, so that individuals are held responsible for the budgets that they manage. We also accept the need for reviews of staff resources and competences to allow more staff resources to be allocated to improving project design and monitoring.

1331
The strengthening proposed should be carried out by developing the Commission's internal expertise to enable it to make better judgments on project quality and to find other ways of making better use of existing staffing budgets rather than simply by increasing staff numbers.
It is not premature for me to tell the House that there is a good chance that some of the recommendations included in the report will be addressed by the new regulation governing the programme which is currently under discussion in Brussels. It is a testament to the work of the committee that that is happening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, mentioned the need for a more practical and pragmatic approach. My noble friend Lord Berkeley expressed concern about the lack of empathy with local conditions. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the proposal for the new regulation includes the increased use of local experts and more attachments, or twinnings, between western organisations and NIS partners. It also makes provision for a dialogue-driven approach to programming, a point made powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, when he talked about the need for people-to-people policy.
The proposed new regulation also proposes that there should be a move away from the old "shopping list" approach towards one which we hope will give member states a greater role in deciding priorities as well as engaging local partners more effectively. There are also proposals to improve programme quality and content by adopting a phased approach, which would help to prevent continued funding for clearly unsuccessful projects. There are also ideas for an incentive scheme. Those proposals have yet to be worked out in detail, but they indicate a genuine desire on the part of the Commission to effect real improvements.
On the wider issues of reform of the Community's aid programmes, the Government have published an institutional strategy paper since they gave evidence to the committee last year. That document sets out 18 specific objectives which the UK is pursuing with the Commission, other EU institutions and member states to improve the effectiveness and focus of EC aid. It is available in the Library and I commend it to the House.
In the time available, I am unable to deal with the specific transport issues raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, but I am happy to follow them up in writing and to answer the specific points he raised.
I conclude by turning to environmental issues. The report and the debate this evening recognise that the environmental problems are huge, and that Tacis resources alone will never be enough to solve them. Good projects have been implemented in the face of great difficulties and many more are now in the pipeline. The Tacis programme is now entering a new era and we must ensure that this leads to a better and more effective programme in the future.
9.36 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what was in many ways an
1332
encouraging response, particularly in relation to the negotiations that are taking place with the Commission. They sound very much in tune with our recommendations. I am also grateful to all Members of the House who took part in the debate. We were talking to ourselves to some extent, but I am particularly grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Park, who both suggested that there should be much wider dissemination of our report to diplomats and politicians both here and in Europe. That might fulfil some of our objectives and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, was present to hear that recommendation and hope perhaps that it will be carried forward.
It has been a great pleasure to take part in this debate and, as well as being involved as my last task as the chairman of the environment committee, to take part in such an exciting project. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for some of our comments on consultants. There are of course exceptions to every rule. On the other hand, every stereotype contains a grain of truth and I hope he will accept that perhaps not all consultants are as splendid as he is.
Once again, I thank all those who took part in the debate tonight. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Indonesia
9.38 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote democracy and human rights in Indonesia.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who have remained until a fairly late hour on a Thursday evening to take part in this important debate on the question of human rights and democracy in Indonesia.
I believe that the Government had the best of the argument on their policy of constructive engagement when this became a matter of dispute in the Select Committee in another place. In the long run we have been more effective by remaining involved than if we had tried to isolate Indonesia. The principle of constructive engagement should be applied on a case by case basis, as the Government agreed with the Select Committee. There are only a handful of psychopathic regimes where it would not be possible to do anything at all to promote human rights. Indonesia, even under Suharto was not included in that category.
During the Suharto era we did quite a lot. Mr. Fatchett met Xanana Gusmao in prison twice and called for his release. In the presidency of the European Union we led a troika mission to East Timor; we organised a human rights workshop later in the year in Jakarta in October and since the resignation of Suharto we have continued to work actively to support reform.
One matter which received emphasis in the report of the Select Committee and also in the reply from the Foreign Office was the training of the police force. It is important, bearing in mind the poor human rights record

1333
of the police in the past, that they should learn good policing methods, including respect for human rights. Now that the police are separated from the military, we are saying that we can see an even clearer role for British training.
Intuitively, human rights education ought to improve the standards of any police force, but I want to ask the Minister whether there is any evidence to show that it does. If the police are part of a system with an agenda of oppression, the training might be nothing more than a cloak to hide their real intentions. As the Minister knows, the police are still responsible to the Ministry of Defence and thus under the control of ABRI, whose political goals are not entirely clear. Under the previous administration, a study was initiated of the effects of police training in human rights to ascertain whether or not it was effective. It would be useful to know whether that project is continuing.
The Government also have a better record on arms sales than their critics have allowed. According to the Strategic Export Controls report, they issued 40 licences in 1997, but most of those were not for lethal equipment. We exported 23 armoured combat vehicles in that period, which were presumably licensed under the previous administration. Can the Minister say whether there are further commitments to deliveries of lethal equipment and tell us whether, in view of the violence already erupting, she thinks we ought to ask the United Nations to impose an embargo on all military supplies to Indonesia until after the presidential elections?
We do know that there are 16 Hawks still remaining to be delivered. I ask the Minister to agree that, even if we cannot persuade the Security Council to impose a mandatory embargo on all weapons sales to Indonesia, it would be inappropriate to deliver these aircraft while the armed forces are still involved in atrocities all over the country, not just in East Timor.
Since the fall of Suharto, both the risks and opportunities have increased. The electoral system has been reformed and the dual function of the military has been reduced, though not eliminated. As I have already said, the police are to be separated from the army, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly have been expanded and the parliamentary elections are scheduled for 7th June, with presidential elections following in November. Above all, the people of East Timor are supposed to be given a choice between autonomy and independence.
On the other side of the coin, the economy has nose-dived and unrest has broken out in many parts of the country, with ethnic and religious tensions fuelling violence. The armed forces and the police have continued to kill and torture civilians and, in East Timor, pro-integration militias have been formed with ABRI encouragement and given free rein to attack and intimidate those who favour independence.
Although the unrest and violence is very serious, I do not think it has reached the level at which the elections in 45 days' time are imperilled, except in East Timor where a vote is also scheduled in July on the government's autonomy package. The modalities of that exercise are being sorted out today in New York
1334
between the foreign ministers of Indonesia and Portugal under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General. But there is some evidence to suggest that Indonesia's offer of self-determination was not made in good faith. There are people within the regime who, while pretending to be interested in a democratic solution to the question of East Timor, are intent upon creating a situation of civil war in which those who want independence will be kept away from the polling booths by murder and intimidation.
On 6th April the militia, aided by the army, attacked refugees in the church and the home of the local priest in Liquica, killing some 50 people, When Bishop Belo went there to say mass the following Sunday, his convoy was attacked by the same thugs. Last weekend the militias went on the rampage in Dili, beating up and shooting people and setting houses on fire.
At the home of Manuel Carrascalao, brother of the former governor Mario and a leading critic of Indonesian rule, 12 people were murdered, including his son. The army made no attempt to stop the violence, and two of the victims who were wounded say that not only were soldiers in uniform standing by, but they believe that others who were dressed in black and who participated in the murders were serving soldiers. Neither the Governor, Mr Soares, nor the local military commander, Colonel Tono Suratman, did a thing to maintain order, as the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. David Andrews, confirmed. Mr. Andrews was in Dili at the time and he heard from aid workers that the soldiers cheered truckloads of militia on their way to the massacre as they passed army posts, and that a speech by Governor Soares at a military rally had encouraged the assassins to proceed with the murders.
President Habibie's foreign policy aide, Dewi Fortuna. Anwar, has accepted that the Government were responsible for the violence, and the UN Secretary General has said that he,
"regrets this apparent inability of the Indonesian authorities to control the violence by militias and to protect the civilian population".
It is encouraging to note that a peace agreement was signed yesterday between the militia and the Timorese resistance, but Jose Ramos Horta has said that General Wiranto himself masterminded the violence, and of course Wiranto did not sign the deal. He merely witnessed it, promising to end the attacks without acknowledging that his own troops were responsible. If Wiranto is genuinely committed to peace, he should relieve the commander of the forces in East Timor, General Adam Damiri, of his duties, as well as the colonel who is directly in control in Timor itself; he should order the disbanding of the militias, reduce the military presence in East Timor, and invite KomnasHAM or some other suitable impartial authority, to conduct an inquiry into the violence of the past month. General Wiranto's attitude has been ambivalent so far, and it is essential that he makes a public declaration of support for the consultation process.
The disbandment and disarmament of the militias under international supervision is absolutely essential to the success of the democratic process. As long as these elements have a free rein, pro-independence activists are

1335
unable to campaign, as Jonathan Head of the BBC said yesterday. The Sydney Morning Herald claims that 150 pro-integration assassins are heading for Jakarta to kill East Timorese leaders and activists. Mario Carrascalao has said that he believes he is at the top of the death list and he is in hiding.
Has Britain, as a permanent member of the Security Council, taken a view on the desirability of an international presence in East Timor to ensure that both the MPR election and the referendum on autonomy are conducted properly and without violence or intimidation on either side? I note that James Rubin of the US State Department said that an international presence could advance the immediate disarmament of all groups on the island although clearly action needs to be taken to prevent murders elsewhere, including Jakarta.
It is reported that President Habibie has invited Australia and other countries to co-ordinate preparations for the July consultation. Can the Minister confirm that the other countries invited are Germany, Brazil, the US and the Philippines and has their role been further defined, or is this a matter to be left to the Security Council, in consultation with those concerned, assuming that the deal is signed between the foreign ministers today or tomorrow?
While the limelight has been on East Timor, the army has also been responsible for atrocities in Aceh and Irian Jaya, in both of which there are strong independence movements. In Aceh, preliminary findings by commissions of inquiry have discovered that the army was responsible but no one has been tried for the killings, torture and disappearances. The hostility between the military and the people is intense and is fuelled by the unnecessary arrests and gratuitous violence against people supporting the Free Aceh movement. For instance, on Tuesday two people were killed, five suffered gunshot wounds and 300 were arrested at Lhokseumawe when they were demonstrating against the arrest of perfectly peaceful demonstrators the previous day. In Irian Jaya, the police have banned all discussions of recent talks between President Habibie and a delegation of locals who were demanding a review of the 1965 Anschluss sanctioned by the UN in breach of its own rules.
In a situation where the people cannot get news of the negotiations and activities of government, the World Service has a particularly vital part to play in enabling people to get the information that their governments do not want them to have. It has a good record of responding to immediate crises with additional broadcasting time, as it has done in the case of the events in the Balkans. The Foreign Secretary wrote to me on 13th February and said that the World Service,
"is constantly shifting resources from higher to lower priorities to take account of political, technological and commercial developments".
He agreed with me about the special value of the World Service in weak democracies. Yet the BBC broadcasts only two and a quarter hours a day in Bahasa Indonesia. Could there be some extension of broadcasting hours, at
1336
least over the election period, and also an increase in the audio on the Internet, which is at present only half an hour a day?
If people cannot talk freely about questions of governance in the context of elections, the transition will not be towards democracy but to civil war. Britain has already done much to help with the reforms that are so desperately needed throughout Indonesia. I hope that we may continue to rely on the Government to look for means of helping the people to make their important decisions in June and July, after full debate and without further intimidation or violence.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, when I was appointed to your Lordships' House I had the pleasure of occupying the desk of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I was amazed at the mountainous number of files on his desk, all of them about matters of human rights. There are many people in various parts of the world who are alive today because of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Your Lordships' House should note seriously what he has to say. Only last weekend I was observing elections in Turkey. No one cared about me; all that people wanted to ask me was how was Lord Avebury.
I welcome the debate. Only this week, in a debate on India and Pakistan, I said that it is right that we should stress our commitment to human rights wherever, whenever and by whomsoever they were abused. Here we have the opportunity to express our concern about East Timor.
We are all aware of the troubled history of Indonesia. For more than three decades of President Suharto's rule the regions were governed by civil servants from Jakarta, supplemented by battalions of soldiers to quell separatist revolts. I have looked at a number of reports analysing the history and they all confirm that the major share of Indonesia's revenue depended on the regions. No wonder this situation was exploited without due regard to the grievances of the local population. It is expedient to ignore human rights when the primary aim of Indonesia was to explore the wealth of its regions. The government there are now considering greater autonomy, including the proposal that regions control most of the revenue from their own resources.
The Government of Indonesia had no alternatives. East Timor has been a special case as the United Nations decided that its annexation was illegal. There are pronouncements now that East Timor may be granted full independence after the June elections. I shall believe that when I see it.
The BBC has quoted the Information Minister, Yunus Yosfiah, as saying that Indonesia's parliament may consider granting regional autonomy plus to East Timor. I do not know what he means by "plus". He goes on to say,
"If that is not accepted by the masses in East Timor, we will suggest to the new membership of the People's Consultative Assembly to release East Timor from Indonesia".
The Nobel Peace Prize winner, José Ramos Horta, has said that the government is a sham aimed at the diplomatic community. He is from East Timor, and he

1337
should know. There is concern about what is going on even now in East Timor. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, cited cases under the murderous regime in Indonesia. Again, according to José Ramos Horta, people are being slaughtered, women are still being raped and torture is rampant.
About a year ago I had been invited as a witness to an exhibition of photographs which highlighted the tortures and murders in East Timor perpetrated by soldiers sent to quell revolts by local people. No one can fail to he moved by the suffering of the East Timorese. The degradation of and violence against defenceless people was unimaginable. We must never allow that to happen again.
East Timor has a troubled history. In 1975, immediately after Portugal's withdrawal, Indonesia sent troops in. In the process of annexation and the famine that followed it is estimated that over 200,000 people died. The rights of ordinary people were violated. In 1991, armed forces fired on demonstrators, killing scores and imprisoning Xanana Gusmao, who is today under house arrest. Despite the offer of special status by the new president, President Habibie, there is concern about the future of the island. The main concern is what will happen economically to an island which has few natural resources and few other means of supporting itself. Of course I accept the point about natural resources such as oil still being available.
We need to ensure that a number of things happen. The political process of autonomy and independence must be achieved by peaceful means and ample support must be provided during the transition period until Timor gets on its feet.
Decades of protest and political repression have left the country with a poorly educated workforce. Unemployment is high. There is also a history of violent political divisions. As a history of the island demonstrates, in the past rival political factions have formed militia to fight others for control. I echo the words of the Nobel Peace Prize winner and Bishop of Dill, Carlos Belo, that the dangers of destabilisation are there. A transition period is needed during which talks could be held between opposing groups. We need to ensure that the bloody history of the island is not repeated in the new process, otherwise, violence and bloodshed will taint the road to freedom.
9.58 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, not only on this debate, but on introducing so many debates on human rights and encouraging younger Members when they first enter this House. I also thank the noble Lord for his invitation to speak in the gap. I speak as a board member of Christian Aid and on behalf of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development. I hope that, in a reformed House, we may have a Roman Catholic spokesperson. A subject such as East Timor requires a major contribution from a Catholic church leader.
1338
For the people of East Timor, the situation is broadly comparable to that in South Africa just before the elections in 1994, or even to the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. After many years of struggle, the parties are on the verge of agreement. They are almost ready to lay down their weapons. It is only a matter of time. The outside world must encourage both sides in the long-awaited peace process which may lead to independence, although it may fall short of that.
However, it is not as simple as that, because the people do not yet have the confidence that the government—and I mean here the Indonesian Army rather than President Habibie himself—will deliver on the agreement they are putting forward. The Foreign Ministers may be meeting in New York today, but the Churches in Timor are cautious. General Wiranto, the armed forces Minister, attended the so-called peace accord, between pro-integration and pro-independence groups in Dili yesterday, but he did not actually put his name to it; nor did Bishop Carlos Belo (Bishop of Dili and Nobel Laureate) or Bishop Basilio do Nascimento. Those two eminent Church leaders, and the Catholic agencies, remain extremely wary as it is widely believed that the whole agreement was stage-managed by the army and designed once again to prove that the Timorese are divided among themselves.
Meanwhile, there are nightly attacks in and around Dili and numerous reports of deaths at the hands of pro-integration militias. I know there are two sides to every process, but as one who has witnessed pre-election intimidation in South Africa, I can recognise the fear which contract killers paid by government can instil in the local population. It is the same in Southern Sudan.
I heard today from a Roman Catholic agency in Dili that many young Timorese are either hiding in the mountains or queuing to leave the country by air or ferry, or whatever means—so little trust is there in the peace process. The Churches are vulnerable to attack and a number of aid workers assisting the displaced people or running the health programmes, have received death threats.
We have heard that international pressure is developing in favour of a United Nations peace-keeping force. Amnesty International is calling for human rights monitors. Australia, Japan (which is the main trading partner) and Portugal are all urging restraint at this time.
The Minister will know that the heads of four British charities have written to the Foreign Office Minister to express concern that,
"elements of the Indonesian military are acting in direct contradiction to stated Indonesian government policy, in a concerted attempt to undermine recent moves towards resolving the impasse over East Timor's political status".
The agencies also echo Bishop Belo's call for a United Nations peace-keeping force, and they offer this warning about the plebiscite:
"Consultation of the East Timorese along the lines of UN proposals currently under discussion will in the present circumstances be fraught with intimidation, coercion and violence. Given the coercive nature of previous consultations of East Timorese, a vote now must be seen to be absolutely free and fair".

1339
Can the Minister confirm that this Government have a moral obligation to support at least a small peace-keeping force, as well as observers, to ensure that a fair election takes place and that the security of the people is guaranteed, while humanitarian aid is allowed to continue?
There is communal violence and unrest all over Indonesia, as the noble Lord said, and most recently in Jakarta itself. Can the British Government do anything directly to assist the people through their own embassy? I doubt it. But what they can do is to continue to express concern at the highest level, including at the World Bank and in International Monetary Fund meetings. The Asian crisis, as well as the present political unrest, continues to bite into the economy. I know that since the Public Accounts Committee reported and the end of the aid/trade provision, DfId has been looking for more poverty-focused programmes. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government are placing new emphasis on support for the non-governmental organisations and civil society.
10.3 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Avebury for raising the issue of human rights in Indonesia. I always remember being moved by a famous quotation from Lord Burke which runs:
"It is enough for evil to triumph that good men do nothing".
If there had ever been an example of someone to whom that saying would not apply, I believe it to be my noble friend Lord Avebury. There is never an act of injustice that does not attract his attention, his hard work, perseverance and determination to make every possible effort he can to try to rectify it. I am sure that there are times when the Minister sighs at yet another detailed letter from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, arrives on her desk. At the end of the day I am sure that she, too, appreciates, as the rest of us do, that he is one of the builders of civilised societies and for that we all owe him a very great deal.
Perhaps I may underline a point raised in particular by my noble friend, Lord Dholakia, and by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. That is the devastating effect that the economic crisis has had on Indonesia in the past two years. Certainly none of us would wish to pay too much tribute to President Suharto's long regime, although he managed to attract quite a lot of co-operation from this country at a business level. In the past two years Indonesia has gone through something close to agony with a 14 per cent drop in its national income in 1998 and a further probable drop of 5 per cent to 6 per cent in the current year. We are dealing with a country which has seen about a quarter of its national product disappear in the course of a very short period of time. Even though there are some signs of recovery in east Asia, particularly in Thailand and in Malaysia to some extent, that does not seem to have embraced Indonesia so far, where literally millions of people have lost their jobs, millions more are unable to feed their children and where there are extremely serious economic conditions in many of the islands.
1340
My son-in-law visits Indonesia regularly. He is an architect and goes there in connection with his profession. He has often reported to me that he now finds starvation in the Indonesian villages, and people are unable to pay for even such basic products as rice. There is an increasing desperation on their part, much of which is visited in the form of ethnic violence. Attacks on the ethnic Chinese in May 1998 led to about 70,000 Chinese uprooting themselves and leaving with their capital. That had a devastating effect on Indonesia because the ethnic Chinese were among the major sources of business and trade in that potentially very rich country. Once again the poverty which affected ordinary Indonesians was carried further into ethnic violence, which has led to a further worsening of an economic crisis of a very serious kind.
I underline what my noble friend Lord Avebury said about Aceh and West Irian. I say with all the seriousness that I can that there is now some danger of Indonesia beginning to disintegrate. It is worth putting that on the record, not that there is any pleasure in the matter, but because it is another of those places like Kosovo which occupies much of our attention and where early warnings may help to avert a yet more dreadful crisis in future years.
What could we do? I do not want to repeat what has already been said by other speakers in this debate about the situation that arises with regard to human rights in East Timor. With the coming of President Habibie there is some hope, even though he does not now command a great deal of public support. He has signed human rights conventions, including the UN convention against torture. He has allowed a number of political prisoners out of prison. He has indicated that he is willing to accept the presence of opposition parties. He now has a very formidable party in the form of the PDI led by Megawarte Sukarnoputra, the daughter of the former president but one of Indonesia. That is something of an achievement and we should record that fact. But it is not clear whether he has command of his own forces or police in the way that my noble friends underlined.
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is all too likely to be true. We may be looking at a very elaborate form of stage management with the impression being given that the people of East Timor are profoundly divided in their attitude towards the long-standing effort for independence. Not only is there no reason to doubt that the attacks by paramilitaries have occurred consistently over the past few weeks, but those attacks appear to have been financed and supported by the Indonesian army and police. The evidence for that appears to be almost overwhelming.
Further, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, the decision of the bishops, who for a long time have observed the attitudes of their parishioners in East Timor, not to sign the so-called peace agreement, alongside the decision by General Wiranto not to sign it, may signify their belief that this is perhaps a deception (to put it in modest terms). There appears to be no clear reason to believe that this is a serious, concrete step towards peace. A former governor, Mario Carrascalao, to whom my noble friend referred, very courageously indicated that he had grave doubts about

1341
the so-called peace agreement and the proposals for a referendum. He is now running in fear of his life and the safety of his family.
I draw my contribution to a close by mentioning some of the ways in which the Government may help. I do so recognising all the limitations—heaven knows—on the action of any government with regard to another sovereign, independent government. At present there is under discussion at the World Bank a $600 million loan for Indonesia. That loan has been held up because of concerns about whether it may fall into the hands of corrupt administrators and may not go to help the poorest of the poor for whom it is intended. Can the Minister say anything about the possibility of involving NGOs and others in the delivery of that loan so that the money goes to people who are now near starvation in some of the islands of Indonesia?
Is there any possibility of education and health being ring-fenced? The only matter on which I disagree with my noble friend Lord Dholakia is that Indonesia has a remarkable record of primary education with no less than 95 per cent of its children attending school. That is a high figure for east Asia. Alas, we now know from figures provided by UNCTAD that in the past year 20 per cent of children have withdrawn from school. It is likely that that figure will approach 30 per cent in the present year. That is devastating for the future of Indonesia and its ability to compete against other countries for global exports. It is not surprising that the World Bank's vice-president for east Asia said:
"The toll of human suffering in Indonesia is too great for us to turn away in her hour of need".
I believe that to be a very perceptive remark. But perhaps the Minister can say more about the conditions to be attached to the loan, if it is agreed in the coming months.
I turn finally to proposals for the political and human rights situation. Does the Minister agree that we should make representations to the Government of Indonesia, as I understand the US Congress has done already, about ceasing support for the paramilitaries? Can we ensure that we ourselves provide no such support? The US Congress discovered that training of some Indonesian police who were being used as paramilitaries was continuing and brought that programme to an end. First, can the Minister assure us that we are giving no support in the shape of arms, weapons or training to those currently engaged as paramilitaries in the suppression of opinion in East Timor and elsewhere?
Secondly, will the noble Baroness carefully consider supporting the proposals—now surprisingly accepted by President Habibie, at least in principle—for monitors to supervise the referendum in East Timor? I recognise that that may mean some delay from the 15th July date which has been made public, but the idea of having international monitors for that referendum is utterly crucial. Without them there is little chance that either the people of East Timor or world opinion will accept the outcome of the referendum. I think that those who take such a sceptical view would be right.
Thirdly, does the Minister agree that it is important to encourage action on racial and religious discrimination in Indonesia? Perhaps here DfID and the
1342
Know-How Fund could be helpful in providing some information about the experience of Europe which, after all, knows deeply about religious and racial discrimination and the ways in which our laws are beginning to help attitudes on that front.
Lastly, can the noble Baroness tell us anything about the outcome of the recommendations of the inquiry into the rape of Chinese women at the time of the riots in May 1998? I understand that the Indonesian inquiry team courageously made a number of recommendations which we understand have not so far been acted upon. Can the attention of the Indonesian Government be drawn to that inquiry result, and to our approval of the courage of those who took part in it, and can we suggest that its recommendations should now be acted upon?
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I should like, first, to take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing this important debate. As other noble Lords have mentioned, it has taken place at a relevant time, for today in New York the Indonesian Foreign Minister is due to unveil its autonomy package in the UN-mediated talks with Portugal, the very day after the pro-integrationists and anti-integrationists in East Timor signed a peace agreement.
From these Benches, I should like also to take the opportunity to welcome the announcement today that the Minister of State will visit Indonesia and East Timor next week, reinforcing the UK's support for, and commitment to, the process of democratic and political reform upon which Indonesia is currently embarked. We look forward to hearing the results of his visit in due course.
Nevertheless, despite those rays of hope in what has surely been one of the most tumultuous and traumatic years in Indonesia's modern history, progress on democracy and human rights has often seemed like a case of two steps forward and one step back, while religious violence, ethnic unrest, federalist, secessionist and integrationist conflicts, the corruption of "money politics", and economic hardships have continued to exact their heavy toll.
Yet it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the distance which Indonesians have travelled since last May when the tinderbox of public anger was set alight by the shooting of four students by the police and Indonesia teetered on the very edge of anarchy as years of simmering grievances boiled over. During that period, organised gangs looted the properties of the wealthier ethnic Chinese minority and systematically raped the Chinese women, as we heard, in one of Jakarta's darkest hours. Few Indonesians will forget the mass student march and occupation of the Parliament which sounded the death-knell for the three decade regime of President Suharto.
Since that time, Indonesia has seen a change in leadership, the enactment of new political laws, the scheduling of elections and the adoption of a fresh approach to East Timor. At this late hour, I shall not go into the details of East Timor. We have heard eloquently from noble Lords today on the issue.

1343
I have a few questions for the Minister. The international community has often been criticised for its inaction over East Timor, other than to issue statements of condemnation and concern. Even the historic visit of the EU/Troika ambassadors to East Timor last June was criticised for contributing little to the process of seeking a fair, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the situation. In the light of that, what assessment have the Government made of the statement of the Nobel Peace prize winner, José Ramos Horta, that it is "bizarre" that while NATO's conflict with Yugoslavia is acceptable to the international community, sending peace-keepers to East Timor is not? Does the Minister agree with Mr. Horta's recent statement that there should be a boycott of Indonesian exports, a freezing of loans and of the assets of former President Suharto?
What assessments have the Government made of fears that too abrupt a transition could result in violence comparable to that which followed Portugal's withdrawal in 1975, with reprisals from pro-integration groups which want to remain in Indonesia?
What discussions have been held with the Australian Government concerning the future of East Timor? Can the Minister say whether this Government would offer troops as part of a multi-national force to oversee the transition from full Indonesian rule?
Finally, what support have the Government offered for Mr. Habibie's proposals to invite international monitors, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to help to prepare East Timor for a vote, and does the Minister consider that it would be acceptable for the planned ballot in July to be delayed while international monitors are invited?
In conclusion, Indonesia has a peaceful, stable and democratic future within its grasp. Its position as the driving force behind ASEAN, the founder of the ASEAN regional forum and a major player in APEC, combined with its large population, its strategic location, the wealth of its resources, its multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society and its status as a vibrant centre of Islamic thought, make it a regional leader and a world player.
Indonesia, just like any other emerging democracy, will face many challenges to achieve the positive economic conditions and political trust necessary for a successful transition to democracy. From these Benches, we join the Government in offering Indonesians our full support in their quest for true democracy and for the rejection of violence, so that from Aceh in Northern Sumatra to Irian Jaya in Eastern Indonesia, where issues of political secession and independence are still to be resolved, a future of justice and freedom, prosperity and peace can prevail, enabling Indonesia to enjoy close and co-operative relationships with its international partners in the 21st century.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating the debate this evening. I agree wholeheartedly with
1344
what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said about his propensity for raising matters of real importance. He has demonstrated again his commitment to human rights in all parts of the world. The noble Lady said that on occasions I may sigh when I see another detailed letter from the noble Lord. I do not sigh when I see those letters. I read them with very great interest because I have learned over the past two years or so since I have held ministerial office that there is a great deal of wisdom in what the noble Lord says. I very much welcome the opportunity that he has given us this evening to explain what the Government are doing to support Indonesia as it becomes the world's third largest democracy and what we have been doing to try to ensure that there is an improved climate for human rights in that country.
On 7th June Indonesia goes to the polls in full multi-party elections. Forty-eight political parties have qualified to take part. It is a mammoth task. Over 320,000 polling stations and 110 million eligible voters will have to be catered for. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is co-ordinating international electoral assistance, focused on support for the independent electoral commission, voter education and domestic monitoring.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what we were doing to do in a practical way in support and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, made a very similar point. I can tell your Lordships that we are contributing over £1.8 million in bilateral assistance, mainly through the UNDP, supporting projects, including BBC training workshops for local radio journalists, workshops for Indonesian political parties which will be run by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and technical assistance for domestic monitoring organisations. The EU contribution is some 7 million euros and there will be, I can assure your Lordships, an EU observer mission for the election.
We are not sanguine about the human rights situation, particularly in East Timor, which I shall address shortly, but there have been significant improvements since President Habibie took office a year ago. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. We have seen most political prisoners released. Official figures show that 212 out of 240 have been released. There has been trade union reform and much greater freedom of expression.
However, the outbreaks of inter-ethnic violence in outlying areas in recent months have been truly shocking. We have called for a new approach in dealing with these incidents. We consider it essential that the delicate ethnic and religious balance of Indonesia is preserved. Acts of violence jeopardising this should be dealt with by security personnel in accordance with international human rights standards and with the aim of reducing tensions. We and the EU have called for all parties to show the utmost restraint in pursuit of their political goals in order to avoid a further increase in tension.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what we were doing in a practical way to support human rights. In terms of practical support, we continue to give material

1345
support to the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission (Komnas Ham) and other Indonesian NGOs. The noble Earl asked specifically about the NGOs. In October last year, we organised a human rights workshop in Jakarta. This was a UK initiative jointly funded by the UK and the European Commission. The workshop, which was divided into four separate working groups covering police and judiciary, women's and children's rights, human rights education awareness and institution building and labour rights, was co-chaired by Mr. Marzuki Darusman, now the Chair of Komnas Ham, and Professor David Harris, a leading human rights expert and head of the human rights law centre at Nottingham University. Participants came from all EU countries and involved a wide range of Indonesians, including government Ministers, NGOs and human rights activists. The fact that the workshop took place at all symbolised a new era of change in Indonesia. I hope that your Lordships agree with that as a general proposition.
A large number of concrete suggestions for follow-up action emerged from the working groups which we and our partners are taking forward. Included was a recommendation that relevant training should be offered to the Indonesian National Police. As part of our human rights strategy for Indonesia we see a clear role for police training, and even more so now that the Indonesian police are being separated from the military, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out.
Perhaps I may tell him a little more about what is happening. Recent initiatives we have taken on police training include a lecture tour of Indonesia by a senior British police team on modern policing methods, and a training programme in the UK for Indonesian police officers of high potential on the concept of policing by consent as practised in the UK. The training will include modules on human rights, police accountability and the rule of law.
I turn to the issue of East Timor. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, Her Majesty's Government are truly appalled at the recent violence in the territory, culminating in attacks by paramilitaries in the capital, Dili, last weekend resulting in some 30 deaths. We have called on the Indonesian government to rein in the militias. The violence included a report of up to 50 deaths in an attack on a church in Liquica, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, on 7th April by paramilitaries while, as we understand from the reports, the army looked on. The Red Cross is investigating and the Indonesian government have promised an inquiry on this appalling incident. My right honourable friend Mr. Fatchett issued a statement on 9th April expressing concern and calling for restraint, and asking for the disarming of the militias and saying that the UN process was the best hope. I hope that your Lordships will also be pleased to learn that the EU issued a declaration along similar lines on 12th April.
At the weekend, the militias went on the rampage again in Dili, as the noble Lord told us, and some 30 deaths were reported. Some prominent independent activists sought refuge at the residence of the Nobel
1346
peace prize winner, Bishop Belo, as did the visiting Irish Foreign Minister. I believe that the noble Lord had some communication in relation to that.
The Prime Minister has written to President Habibie voicing our concern about the situation in East Timor, so we now await a response to the Prime Minister's intervention in that regard.
As a number of noble Lords pointed out, it is imperative that the UN process stays on course and the consultation with the East Timorese people on the autonomy process to be organised by the UN takes place later this year. As a number of noble Lords noted—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Raw lings—Portuguese and Indonesian foreign ministers are meeting Kofi Annan today to reach agreement on the consultation and transition process.
The Government believe that flexibility is needed. The EU and ourselves have called for a UN presence to be established in the territory as soon as possible to ensure stability. I hope that that answers the point that a number of noble Lords raised on that issue, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
We are not committed to any particular solution in that UN process. It is important that it should be fair and comprehensive and that an internationally acceptable solution should be found to the problem of East Timor. But that solution must also respect the interests and legitimate aspirations of those people. That has been the EU Common Position as agreed in 1996. We shall continue to keep in very close contact with the UN Secretary General and his personal representative. Mr Jamsheed Marker, as well as with the Portuguese, the Indonesians and the East Timorese, on that important issue.
The noble Earl raised the question of what was happening to the Christian community. We deplore the recent inter-communal violence. However, there is no suggestion that that is part of any systematic persecution of particular groups. It is the case that, generally, Indonesia has a good record of religious tolerance. We must continue to encourage the Indonesian Government to do all they can to prevent any recurrence of those deplorable events.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, drew our attention also to his worries about defence sales to Indonesia and I shall try to answer some of the points which he raised. We shall not issue licences for export of equipment where we judge that there is a clearly identifiable risk that equipment may be used for internal repression or international aggression. We have made clear to the Indonesian authorities that we do not expect any British-supplied equipment to be used against civilians; to prevent the exercise of their rights of free expression, assembly and association; or in violation of other international human rights standards.
I was interested in what some noble Lords said and the tenor of other speeches also indicated that there is evidence that equipment may have been used for such repression. The Government do not have evidence that any equipment licensed for export by this Government has been used for repression in Indonesia or in East

1347
Timor. If any noble Lord has such evidence, my colleagues responsible for those areas in the FCO would be pleased to see it. If that is so, I urge noble Lords to let the Government have it as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked, implicitly at least, why we sell arms to Indonesia at all. We see no justification for a general arms embargo on Indonesia. It has legitimate defence requirements. All licensing applications for defence equipment to Indonesia are considered on a case by case basis following the criteria which I have just articulated. No new licences are issued for export of any equipment where we judge that it will not be used in accordance with those criteria.
I can also tell the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that there is no support from Her Majesty's Government for the paramilitaries.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, drew our attention to the useful role that can be played by the BBC World Service. I am grateful to him for his kind words about the World Service. The World Service is involved in the training of Indonesian journalists, to which I referred a moment ago, and how they report elections. There is a good deal of interest in that in this country as there will be in Indonesia. We hope that it will be possible to extend the broadcasting hours further, as the noble Lord indicated. I shall obtain further details from my colleagues in the BBC World Service and write to the noble Lord with details of what we may be able to take forward on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also referred to the appalling and shocking attacks on women in the Chinese community last year. I shall write to the noble Baroness about how the inquiry into that rape incident has evolved and how we might encourage its resolution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked a broader question about our economic links. We are keen to maintain a substantive relationship with Indonesia. I want to make it clear that we believe that that is important. We believe that the relationship should reflect the breadth of our bilateral, regional and global interests and address the issues of mutual concern. We should also, of course, address the issues of human rights.
The noble Baroness also referred to the ASEAN relationship. Indonesia plays a leading role in the multi-national arena. It has an important role in regional and international organisations, such as ASEAN, and it is a role that we wish to see encouraged because we believe that that is the way in which Indonesia's institutions, which we have been discussing in democratic terms and in terms of the rule of law, can be encouraged.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about the World Bank. We believe that the work of the international financial institutions (IFIs) should focus on the economic development of Indonesia. That is how
1348
they can best contribute to the alleviation of poverty which, as the noble Baroness knows, is a particular focus of the Government. The NGOs also have an important role to play, sometimes in conjunction with the IFIs. We support that role.
The noble Baroness made a specific suggestion about ring-fencing parts of public expenditure. That is a very interesting suggestion and I should like to look into it further. I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point, too. I now owe the noble Baroness three letters on the very interesting points that she has made this evening.
Although still fraught with difficulties, the transformation of Indonesia into a fully democratic country is one that must fill us all with a degree of hope and, I would go so far as to say, a degree of real joy. I believe that it can be accomplished.
I hope that I have been able to indicate that Her Majesty's Government are fully engaged in supporting that process. My right honourable friend Derek Fatchett visited Indonesia three times last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is extremely observant and has noticed the press release from the FCO today which announces that he will visit both Jakarta and East Timor next week, security concerns permitting. We believe that my right honourable friend will have the opportunity to demonstrate our commitment there to the democratic transition, the support of human rights in Indonesia, and to a future for East Timor which accords with the wishes of its people.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say that she has been extremely helpful on the subject of new licences, but what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the export of dual-use equipment; that is, equipment that can be used for defence or civil purposes? What is the Government's policy regarding spares for in-service defence equipment, especially when those spares could be used for civilian uses or for defence purposes?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, spares are looked at on a case by case basis by Ministers. All Ministers in the Foreign Office and indeed elsewhere have, on occasions, had to look at these cases. The criteria are the same as the criteria that we apply on dual use and indeed the criteria which I had occasion to articulate to your Lordships a moment or two ago.
All the licences are looked at on the basis of whether the equipment which we are being asked to consider will be used for internal repression or external aggression. That is the policy. I cannot articulate it any more clearly than that, but I assure the noble Lord that licences are carefully scrutinised. In relation to Indonesia, great care is taken by those who are responsible for the scrutiny process.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eleven o'clock.

  British Museum: Display of Prints and Drawings
  British Museum: Display of Prints and Drawings
  Local Government Bill: Proposed Powers
  Local Government Bill: Proposed Powers
  Rough Sleepers, Victoria Street
  Rough Sleepers, Victoria Street
  A.4 Hogarth Roundabout-Hammersmith Flyover: Roadworks
  A.4 Hogarth Roundabout-Hammersmith Flyover: Roadworks
  M.4: Roadworks
  M.4: Roadworks
  MMR Vaccine
  MMR Vaccine
  Fluoridation of Water
  Fluoridation of Water
  Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations
  Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations
  Trident
  Trident
  Asylum Seekers: Children's Allowances
  Asylum Seekers: Children's Allowances
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Cycling on Pavements: Fixed Penalty
  Cycling on Pavements: Fixed Penalty
  Criminal Justice Act 1993, Part 1: Entry into Force
  Criminal Justice Act 1993, Part 1: Entry into Force
  Sewage Sludge: Use on Agricultural Land, Scotland
  Sewage Sludge: Use on Agricultural Land, Scotland
  Review and Task Force Reports
  Review and Task Force Reports