Sitting of 7 December 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Tuesday 14 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Jeff Ennis: If he will make a statement on Government policy on enlargement of the European Union. [99943]
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on enlargement issues to be discussed at the next intergovernmental conferences. [99947]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Britain is a leading advocate of enlargement within the European Union. At Helsinki, I am hopeful that we will secure our objective of opening negotiations with a further six countries. We will also seek an intergovernmental conference that will meet the target of preparing the European Union for enlargement by 2002. That will require it to be focused on essential reforms to the size of the Commission and the weight of votes in the Council.
    Within the next few years, the European Union will have a total membership of more than 25 countries and will be a third larger again in population and consumers. It will be even more important for Britain to be respected as a constructive leading partner within Europe and to be remembered by the new members as an ally and friend of their membership.
    Mr. Ennis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party's threat to veto the outcome of the next intergovernmental conference is a threat to veto EU enlargement? Does he agree that that would threaten the future stability of central and eastern Europe, and work against the United Kingdom's national interests?
    Mr. Cook: The national interests of Britain are my responsibility and concern, and I can think of nothing that
    676
    would damage them more than if the countries of central and eastern Europe saw the Conservative party seeking to block enlargement. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) confirmed last week that, if the Opposition do not secure their eccentric vision of a pick and mix Europe at the forthcoming IGC, they will block it. By doing so, they would block the next round of enlargement, making enemies of every country in central and eastern Europe.
    Miss Mclntosh: As a member of the Conservative party, I passionately share the vision of an enlarged European Union. However, does the Foreign Secretary share my concern that one discussion to take place at the Helsinki summit will involve future arrangements for defence, particularly a rapid reaction force? Does he agree that that may send the wrong message to applicant countries from central and eastern Europe who have joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation only this year? Might that not prejudice their applications to join the EU by 2002?
    Mr. Cook: We have held discussions with the three applicant countries that are members of NATO— Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. All of them support what we propose, and we shall seek to ensure that there is provision for consultation with countries that currently have status within the Western European Union or NATO. That covers all the applicant countries. I know of no country that would share the hon. Lady's anxiety. On the contrary, all of them are keen to join a strong and secure EU that can play its part in the world, although that vision of the EU does not always appear to be shared by those on the Conservative Benches.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: When so many of the countries to which my right hon. Friend refers are new to the principles of democracy, why do we not introduce criteria based on good governance, particularly in the way in which their Parliaments operate, when we consider whether to allow them into the European Union?
    Mr. Cook: I refer my hon. Friend to the Copenhagen criteria, which lay out for countries seeking membership detailed requirements on democracy, freedom of the media, human rights and tolerance of ethnic community rights. Countries will not simply be required to meet those criteria when they join; many of them are already taking vigorous steps because of the stimulus of membership. Ethnic minority rights, for example, are being strengthened across central and eastern Europe as a result of the accession process. We shall continue to insist on those rights, but the best way in which to ensure that democracy takes firm root in those countries is to ensure that we advance their membership of a European Union of democratic nations.
    Mr. John Maples: One matter that may be discussed at the intergovernmental conference is the removal of national vetoes on tax matters. Tax changes have always been thought to require a treaty change, but there are threats to use qualified majority voting under single market rules to enact the withholding

    677
    tax directive. Is the Foreign Secretary confident that such action would be outside the terms of the treaty, and that EU tax legislation requires unanimity?
    Mr. Cook: Yes.
    Mr. Maples: There is some confusion over this matter as a result of the Commission's threat to use QMV. Will the Foreign Secretary commit the Government to obtaining a clear statement in the summit conclusions that tax directives cannot in any circumstances be implemented by QMV?
    Mr. Cook: At Helsinki, we intend first to ensure that the eurobond market in the City of London is fully protected against any tax proposals. Secondly, we shall insist in the IGC that taxation must be resolved by unanimity. I note that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to tell us whether he will drop his own policy. If he sticks with it, I shall go to Helsinki as the only national representative whose Opposition are committed to stopping enlargement.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Barnes.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I am all for expansion of the European Union, but are there not some problems in that a number of the eastern European countries that will be seeking membership are emerging from being dominated by politburos? Should they not be entering systems where no vestiges of those operate, so that the Copenhagen principles can begin to be applied to the European Union? Are measures being taken to make the EU a democratic provision that democratic nations can join?
    Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is considerable room for taking forward transparency within the European Union. During the British presidency, we sought to do so and we continue to press for that agenda. In particular, we will continue to press for the publication of the way in which votes are cast within the Councils of Ministers.
    Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): What about the House of Lords?
    Mr. Cook: I do not think that that comes within the scope of the intergovernmental conference, which will give us an opportunity to provide for more transparency in democracy and more effective institutions within the European Union.
    Mr. William Cash (Stone): For those of us who have consistently argued in favour of enlargement since the 1980s—unlike Labour members—will the Foreign Secretary be good enough to comment on the fact that a precondition of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and indeed Hungary and Poland, entering into serious negotiations for the enlarged European Union is that they should be
    678
    obliged to accept the whole of the acquis communautaire? That is regarded with great concern in those countries. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, far from being friends and allies in this matter, unless he and the Government are prepared to stand up for these people and allow them to make their own choices, it will be nothing more or less than blackmail, and that is not the act of a friend?
    Mr. Cook: I can assure the House that the Governments of those countries all want to join the European Union as full members. To do so, they must accept the full acquis. I noted that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman made a speech this week in which he said that Conservative policy is that candidate countries should not be required to accept the full acquis. If, for instance, three of those countries had been given the option of opting out of the full acquis, they would not now be closing the unsafe nuclear reactors that they are obliged to close to meet environmental legislation. It would no more be in Britain's interests to allow a pick and mix approach by applicant countries than to allow it for present member states.
    Madam Speaker: I now call the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
    Mr. Gardiner: I apologise, Madam Speaker, for my premature expostulation.
    Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that the enlargement of the European Union to include Cyprus and candidate status for Turkey will do a great deal to heal wounds and divisions in that part of the world and would, one hopes, bring peace to that part of Europe?
    Mr. Cook: In that part of the world, it is perhaps rash to make quite such a generous prediction, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will work at Helsinki for Turkey to be declared a candidate country. Turkey has a long way to go to meet the Copenhagen criteria and cannot start negotiations until it does meet them, but we believe that it will encourage Turkey to do so and to make the extra effort required if we recognise it as a candidate country and give that encouragement to those who see Europe as the inspiration for the future of Turkey.

    Mozambique (Royal Visit)
    Helen Jackson: If he will make a statement about Her Majesty the Queen's state visit to Mozambique. [99944]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Her Majesty the Queen visited Mozambique on 15 November and I was delighted to accompany her. As the Commonwealth's newest member, Mozambique has made remarkable economic, political and social progress since the end of the brutal civil war in 1992 and it now enjoys an established working democracy.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he will agree that, from being counted as one of the poorest countries in the world, Mozambique is now one of southern Africa's success stories. That is largely due to the way in which its Government have

    679
    worked alongside Britain and other developed countries to establish effective anti-poverty programmes, which have led to two thirds of its debt being written off. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would tell the House, following Her Majesty the Queen's recent visit, what further steps the Government propose to build on that valuable work.
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. Mozambique, having been engulfed by a brutal civil war until the 1990s—effectively supported by elements in the west and the old apartheid regime in South Africa—has now rebuilt its economy and has enjoyed two successive years of double-digit growth. It is a good place to invest. British businesses should look to get in there quickly. I have asked the high commissioner in Maputo to take forward a new programme to improve links between information technology companies and universities in Mozambique and Britain.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What discussions did the Minister or his officials have in Mozambique on the economic effect of HIV-AIDS, and especially that country's ability to fulfil the structural adjustments programme for the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Hain: We raised all those issues. AIDS is a dreadful epidemic throughout Africa, claiming 5,500 lives a day—an extraordinary total. Mozambique is also engulfed by that plague. So we have worked with the Mozambique Government and stand ready to do so further. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development runs an active programme of close co-operation with Mozambique and visited it last year. We shall work with Mozambique to improve its economy in every possible way.

    Internet (Embassies and High Commissions)
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What use his Department is making of the internet for giving out information from the UK's embassies and high commissions. [99946]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Foreign Office is making use of the internet to give out information from our embassies and high commissions and offer a wide variety of information and advice on British Government policy, export leads, investment opportunities and travel advice.
    Mr. Bruce: I recently had the need for urgent information about Slovenia and used the Foreign Office system. I congratulate the Minister and all those involved on the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. I understand that it was set up at low cost to Her Majesty's Government. I just wonder—there is always a sting in the tail, in case the Foreign Secretary thinks that I have gone native—whether Foreign Office Ministers could have a word with their colleagues in the Home Office about the use of information technology to produce new passports. Clearly, where the Foreign Office is making savings and provides an excellent service, the
    680
    Home Office is not. I am sure that the Minister agrees that to use information technology to increase the price of passports by a third is ridiculous.
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in computing, websites, the internet and e-commerce—terms that he used before they were popular. I thank him for his compliment. To date, 52 British missions have their own websites linked to the main FCO website. Recently, we announced another £12 million of funding to provide internet-based information kiosks to promote the United Kingdom overseas. That should enhance our web presence for electronic service delivery. We shall be linking through, and signposting, British Trade International, the British Council, the British Tourist Authority and the Invest in Britain Bureau.
    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's compliments on our FCO site. It has won six new media industry awards and it has recently been shortlisted for the best Government website award, the winner of which will be announced in January. I simply draw that to the attention of the Home Office.
    Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend recall how the previous Administration denied to the diplomatic service adequate resources— indeed, imposed severe cuts on it? Does he find it astonishing, as I do, that the Conservative party still resists and opposes further investment in information technology? It does so to such a degree that one believes that it is evidence of xenophobia, not to say hostility to our economic interests.
    Mr. Battle: I have made a few visits to posts and I have not found that the staff abroad are resistant to new technology. They are keen to get it up and running. A member of staff in one of our embassies introduced me to the new e-expression "electronic trade portals". This is the future jargon for cyberspace. The staff are keen to get into the modern age and use the best technology available to ensure that they give out the best practical advice to people travelling abroad and people who want to do business well in overseas countries.

    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What plans he has to encourage progress on the comprehensive test ban treaty and nuclear non-proliferation. [99948]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We will continue to work with key countries to bring the CTBT into force as soon as possible and to promote the aims of nuclear non-proliferation.
    Mr. Savidge: Does my hon. Friend share the view of the Prime Minister, President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder that nuclear proliferation remains the major threat to world safety as we move into the new millennium? Will Her Majesty's Government consider

    681
    what further initiatives we can take to give fresh impetus to the whole process of confidence-building measures and of disarmament?
    Mr. Hain: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister. To answer my hon. Friend's question seriously, we are concerned to make rapid progress on nuclear disarmament; we are working hard to reach agreement on a fissile material cut-off treaty, to bring the comprehensive test ban treaty into force and to encourage many other countries to sign up to it and ratify it, as we have done. We want to see progress in other matters, especially in the run-up to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in New York next spring.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it not a matter of profound concern and disappointment that the United States Senate recently refused to ratify the test ban treaty? Is not that disappointment and concern underlined by proposals in Washington to depart from the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972? In the light of those policy developments in Washington, what is the Minister's assessment of the likelihood of persuading India and Pakistan to accept the terms of the test ban treaty?
    Mr. Hain: I share—as indeed does President Clinton— the frustration at Capitol Hill's refusal, by a narrow vote in the Senate, to support the comprehensive test ban treaty. That was a grievous blow to the objectives of the treaty—I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, like the Government, wants them to be implemented. However, it is significant that the Administration in Washington has managed to put through their payment to the comprehensive test ban treaty organisation this year. That is a sign of where they stand. The Washington Administration are also committed to negotiate over national missile defence systems—if they decide to proceed with that programme—with the Russians and others, so that would not injure the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
    Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend share my concern as to the likely success of the comprehensive test ban treaty, given the allegation in today's newspapers about the alleged breach of the land mines convention? Should not breaches of that convention, and of the comprehensive test ban treaty—if such breaches are successful—give us grave cause for concern?
    Mr. Hain: I am most concerned about the failure of Pakistan and India to sign up to the comprehensive test ban treaty—I think that is what my hon. Friend was referring to. I am also concerned about the reports that a Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme alleges that criminal offences may have been committed under the Landmines Act 1998, and identifies an official at the Pakistani high commission. I view those allegations extremely seriously. The Foreign Office referred the matter immediately to Customs and Excise. This morning, I summoned the Pakistani high commissioner and explained to him the seriousness of the allegations.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I follow the excellent question of the hon. Member for Colne Valley
    682
    (Kali Mountford) by drawing to the Minister's attention the fact that, in the past, treaties which we thought that everyone had signed in good faith—I refer in particular to the 1972 biological weapons convention—were subsequently systematically flouted, by the former Soviet Union in the case of the 1972 treaty. When the Minister makes statements as to the desirability of strengthening non-proliferation, will he be cautious about referring to a nuclear-free world as the eventual outcome? We must always bear in mind that, desirable though treaties are, people can always cheat on them afterwards.
    Mr. Hain: Of course.

    Angola
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What actions the United Kingdom is taking to discourage financial and other support for UNITA which prolongs the war in Angola. [99949]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): It is vital that UNITA is starved of the fuel, arms and munitions supplies that enable it to maintain its murderous war, and I have taken fresh action to help to achieve that. The Bank of England has recently blocked five UNITA bank accounts.
    Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the Minister for his prompt action. Will he comment on the persistent reports that senior officials in Zambia, Uganda and Ukraine are helping to fuel the war by illicit shipments of arms into the territory?
    Mr. Hain: I know of reports that show conclusively that Jonas Savimbi's UNITA organisation can sustain its murderous civil war activity, killing hundreds of thousands of people, as it has done for the past 20 years or so, only because fuel and arms are flown in, often with the connivance of the countries around Angola.
    I am also aware of the allegations in respect of Zambia and Uganda. I have raised those with the Zambian Foreign Minister and the President of Uganda, and both have assured me that they will take any evidence that is given to them very seriously, because UNITA must be starved of its capacity to wage that war.
    I am also aware of Ukrainian pilots flying in supplies. That must be stopped, and I look to the Ukrainian Government to take immediate action to stop it.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Is the Minister aware of the need, on humanitarian grounds alone, to keep some line of communication open to Jonas Savimbi and UNITA? I speak of the case—in which I have a constituency interest—of Jason Pope, a young man who was kidnapped by UNITA more than a year ago, and who has not been heard of since. I should like an assurance that the Minister is willing to speak to Mr. Pope's family and not to discount altogether the possibility of a mission by private citizens, including the family and anyone else—perhaps a Member of Parliament—to try to find that young man and return him to his family.
    Mr. Hain: I very much welcome the opportunity to say that Foreign Office officials are in regular touch with

    683
    Jason Pope's family. We are very aware—I am especially aware—of the suffering that his parents have been undergoing for some time. We are doing, and shall do, all that we can to track down his whereabouts. I hope that he is still alive.
    UNITA—especially its leader—is a very difficult organisation to talk to on an honest basis. Jonas Savimbi has consistently broken his word. I should like UNITA to be brought into negotiations with the Government of Angola to achieve a peaceful settlement to the awful crisis and long-standing war, but it is difficult to envisage that happening with him at its head.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: I welcome everything that my hon. Friend has said, but does he agree that, sadly, there is nothing new about the present situation in that, whenever there has been a possibility of peace in Angola, the intransigence of UNITA has been the stumbling block? Given that, if that country had not been plagued by war and violence, it would have the potential to become one of the richest countries in Africa, does my hon. Friend agree that the whole international community should redouble its efforts to bring peace to that troubled country?
    Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The scandal is that, although Angola has the capacity to feed the whole of southern Africa and to become a really rich and prosperous country, contributing to Africa's renaissance with its vast natural resources in oil, gas and diamonds, it has been plagued by a dreadful civil war, waged by UNITA, previously supported by the CIA and the South Africans—although, thankfully, no longer.
    We must act firmly and toughly against those who are supplying UNITA with fuel and munitions. United Nations sanctions are in place. Ambassador Fowler is doing an excellent job. However, it is time that we had action from the countries that are able to influence UNITA's supplies, and we in Britain have stepped up our campaign to ensure that that happens.

    China
    Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his policy of quiet diplomacy with the Chinese authorities. [99950]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): We are continually assessing the effectiveness of our policy towards China, especially in the field of human rights.
    Mr. Baker: I believe that the Government are acting from the best of motives—as was the Minister's predecessor, the excellent Derek Fatchett—but I have to say that the policy of quiet diplomacy has failed. Repression in Tibet, far from disappearing, has intensified in recent years. It is now a criminal offence to have a Tibetan flag—even in this country it is difficult, these days—or to have a picture of the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader. The youngest political prisoner in the world, the Panchen Lama, is being held by the Chinese authorities and no access to him is allowed. Is it not clear that the
    684
    policy of quiet diplomacy has, sadly, failed, and that it is time for the UK and other western countries to start talking tough with Beijing?
    Mr. Battle: I do not accept that the policy has failed. Since we undertook the policy of dialogue with China on human rights, China has signed the UN covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in October 1997 and the UN covenant on civil and political rights in October 1998. There have been visits to China by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, in September 1998 and by the working group on arbitrary detention in November 1997. There was also the EU troika ambassadors' visit to Tibet in May 1998. That is some progress, and I think that the special rapporteur on torture will visit China next year.
    On Tibet, I recently visited Beijing and I met the Minister and Vice-Minister, whom I asked directly about the Dalai Lama's choice of Panchen Lama, not least because there had been rumours that the Panchen Lama had died and had been cremated. I asked for permission to send in visitors to verify that he was still alive and I pressed them to provide a written assurance that he was still alive. I am glad to say—perhaps it is only a small matter—that we received that assurance and we made sure that it received public press coverage as well. We can move forward, albeit slowly because we face tremendous challenges. I share the hon. Gentleman's aims, but we have got to keep pressing.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): Through diplomacy, will my hon. Friend also ensure that the agreements over Hong Kong are not eroded and that freedom of press in Hong Kong will continue?
    Mr. Battle: The answer is yes. I was recently in Hong Kong, where I met members of non-governmental organisations, human rights groups and representatives of political groups, including opposition and governing groups. We shall continue to work with them to ensure that human rights and freedom of expression are respected. I was pleased, when I visited Hong Kong, that I was thanked by a member of a leading human rights non-governmental organisation for my help in securing the safe return of Lee Cheuk Yan to Hong Kong some years ago. I was surprised by that when I walked into the room, but we shall continue to work with such groups to ensure that there is proper freedom of expression in Hong Kong. That was part of the agreement at the handover, and it will remain part of it.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome any progress but, as has been said, treaties are often forgotten. Does the Minister therefore accept that there needs to be a constant watch on what is happening in China and Tibet? Will he be able to press for an open parliamentary visit to Tibet so that we can see for ourselves what is happening?
    Mr. Battle: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a strong interest in Tibet and has done so for many years. I met the all-party group on Tibet in the House a few days ago. When I was in Beijing, I asked the Chinese authorities whether it was not time to allow and enable an all-party group of Members of Parliament to visit Tibet. I was told that that would not be likely because the

    685
    authorities were rather worried that the representatives on the delegation could be suspicious characters. I reminded the Chinese that the all-party group would be elected Members of the House and, therefore, had a right to go. I am confident that we can continue to press for an all-party group of Members of the House to visit Tibet, and I hope that that will be next year.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The real question is whether the Minister is a fit person to be in charge of diplomacy, quiet or otherwise. On 5 November, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), in a written answer confirmed to the House that 15 people had been arrested in connection with the visit of the President of China. Some two weeks later, on 22 November, the Minister told the House that no one had been arrested. Either the Minister did not know, or he misled the House. He should tell us now and, if he did either, he should resign.
    Mr. Battle: I have corrected the record as a result of the misunderstanding that arose on 22 November when I said—I shall read out the record—that no one was "arrested or charged". I meant "arrested and charged". I will concede that a few people were arrested, and that is what the Home Office said. However, no one was charged during the visit, and that is the primary point. That is what I said, but I am happy to put the record right for a slip of the tongue. Whether I am a fit person to do the job is, I am grateful to say, not the hon. Lady's decision; it will remain a decision for those on the Labour Benches.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): If he will make a statement on the funding of the peacekeeping mission in Sierra Leone. [99952]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The United Nations peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone will be funded by the assessed contributions of member states. The United Kingdom is also providing 15 military observers and eight specialist military personnel.
    The United Kingdom has already provided £27 million for humanitarian needs and the disarmament process and we are also contributing £10 million to support the troops of ECOMOG and for the training of an army for the Government of Sierra Leone. No other nation from outside the region has contributed as much as the UK to the reconstruction of Sierra Leone and to enabling its people, once again, to live under a freely elected Government.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. I know that he accepts that the situation in Sierra Leone is dire. Innocent civilians there simply want security, and that has not been achieved. What international efforts are the Government making with the countries of the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations to ensure that there is adequate funding for the
    686
    DDR—disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration— programme and rapid deployment of the necessary peacekeeping forces, which are now so urgently required?
    Mr. Cook: I discussed those questions with President Kabbah and President Obasanjo in Durban last month, and I wholeheartedly echo the hon. Gentleman's point. To speak to anybody who has seen the problems at first hand, such as the children who have had their arms lopped off by the rebels, is to understand the degree of human suffering that will be visited on Sierra Leone for decades to come, as a result of the brutality of the past two years.
    Sierra Leone, rightly and justifiably, looks to Britain to be its voice in many of those international forums. Britain took the lead in achieving the resolution on Sierra Leone in the Security Council, and we are now working hard to make sure that the troops required for that mission to succeed are provided. In particular, we shall be in contact with other donor countries to make sure that they match our contributions to the process of disarmament, so that we can take advantage of those people who are coming out of the bush, seeking to disarm and to be retrained.

    India
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the recent visit to India by the Minister of State. [99953]
    Mr. Michael J. Foster (Worcester): If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with India. [99961]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): At the request of the Prime Minister, I visited India last month to open a new chapter in our relations with India, and I had excellent discussions with Indian leaders, including Prime Minister Vajpayee. We agreed on a new partnership of equals between our countries, including an alliance between our information technology sectors.
    Dr. Iddon: India is often criticised for not allowing foreign politicians, non-governmental organisations— especially Amnesty International—and the wider media free access to Jammu and Kashmir. Certainly during a visit to Islamabad and Azad Kashmir this summer, a group of Labour Members of Parliament felt that criticism strongly, but when we put that to the Foreign and Home Secretaries in New Delhi, we got the opposite point of view. Did my hon. Friend have similar discussions during his recent visit to India, and if so, what were his impressions?
    Mr. Hain: I did, indeed, have such discussions, and I specifically raised with leading members of the Indian Government the desire of NGOs and British Members of Parliament to visit Kashmir. They are now much more sympathetic to that idea, and we want to explore that with them. It is in India's interests to make sure that human rights are respected in Kashmir, and for that reason I raised with them the imprisonment of virtually the entire Kashmiri leadership, which is not a good advertisement for India's policy on Kashmir.

    687
    I must, however, point out that India is on the receiving end of cross-border terrorism, which we strongly condemn, and we want to work with the Indian Government to prevent that. They have shown great restraint over Pakistani attacks, especially at Kargil earlier this year.
    Mr. Foster: I recently held a meeting with Worcester's ethnic minority consultative forum, at which its members related to me their fears about the situation in Kashmir. Next time that my hon. Friend meets representatives of the Indian Government, will he impress on them the strength of feelings expressed at that forum, which seeks a peaceful, lasting solution to the problem in Kashmir which is acceptable to the people of Kashmir?
    Mr. Hain: I am aware of the excellent work that my hon. Friend does in his constituency with that forum, and the way in which he allows it to express its views, which we all value. We will indeed continue to press for the case for resuming close negotiations between Delhi and Islamabad, as soon as that is possible following the Pakistani coup. I understand the difficulties of proceeding to that point overnight, but it is absolutely imperative that India and Pakistan together negotiate an equitable and lasting solution to the Kashmiri crisis, which otherwise will continue to be a very dangerous flash-point in the region.

    Poland
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: If he will make a statement on relations with Poland. [99954]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Our relations with Poland are excellent. Poland is the largest of the EU accession states, and our most important trading partner in central and eastern Europe. We warmly welcomed Poland's membership of NATO in March 1999, and strongly support Poland's application to join the EU.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I think that it will be warmly welcomed by the thousands of Polish people who have made their homes in and around Plymouth because of the close association between the city and the second world war. Underpinning that is a strong twinning arrangement with the naval port of Gdynia and some extremely interesting exchanges recently dealing with football hooliganism, community safety and tackling drug abuse. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that such exchanges will go from strength to strength as Poland approaches membership of the EU? Will he say something about the importance that he attaches to ministerial exchanges at national level to facilitate that?
    Mr. Vaz: I fully support my hon. Friend's comments. The United Kingdom wants Poland to be part of the EU. It is a country of 40 million people and, as my hon. Friend has correctly said, there are strong historical ties between our country and Poland. Five days after I was appointed Minister with responsibilities for Europe, I went to Poland. I visited Warsaw and I launched a bilateral action plan. I was pleased to learn that more than £100 million-worth of know-how fund assistance has been given to Poland. Another six of my ministerial
    688
    colleagues have visited Poland recently, including my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. We want to ensure that we keep these contacts going until Poland joins the EU, and we hope that that will be as soon as possible.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who always argued for the broadening of Europe as opposed to the deepening of the European Union? Does he agree with me that if Poland is to accede to the EU—I believe that the whole House wishes that it does so—we shall first have to ensure that the common agricultural policy is revised considerably?
    Mr. Vaz: I certainly support the view that Europe should be as wide as possible, and that is why the United Kingdom has been in the lead on enlargement, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier this afternoon. Obviously, Poland will have to negotiate to join the EU. I am pleased to say that 23 of the 31 chapters of the acquis have been opened. Agriculture is a matter that will be considered. I am certain that the negotiations will be fair and will give the best possible deal for Poland and the EU.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Minister remind the House, in view of earlier questions, that the omission of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic from the European Union is a moral issue and, but for Yalta, they would not only be members of the EU but would have been in at its formation?
    In view of my hon. Friend's comments about the importance to the United Kingdom of trade, is he aware that, in relation to Poland, we are far behind some of our principal European competitors? Will he have a private word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and remind him that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), when she was Secretary of State, went to the important market of Australasia, and that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was Secretary of State, he went to the important marketplace of south America? Neither of them went to Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia or Slovakia, which are the principal front-rank applicants for membership of the EU, and nor has the present Secretary of State.
    Although United Kingdom commerce and trade and industry are making big inroads in Poland, we are not doing sufficient, particularly in the banking and finance sectors, where we have particular skills. Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to go to Poland, bearing in mind that other Heads of Government have been there, not just once, but twice or three times?
    Mr. Vaz: I realise that my hon. Friend was in Poland over the weekend. A visit from him is worth a visit from three Cabinet Ministers. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was disappointed to have to postpone his visit last year at very short notice, which my hon. Friend knows was due to Northern Ireland business. I know that my right hon. Friend hopes to be there at some time in the near future.

    689
    My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade was in Poland in September to launch the Opportunity Poland campaign. Bilateral trade in 1998 was worth £1.9 billion. As my hon. Friend knows, almost £2 billion of British investment goes into Poland. I can assure him that all his points have been well taken. I am glad that so many of my ministerial colleagues have visited Poland. I will pass the message on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Who knows, even my hon. Friend may decide to visit again in the near future.

    EU Reform
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: If he will make a statement on the agenda for the Council at Helsinki in relation to proposals to reform Community institutions. [99955]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): As I said earlier, we expect Helsinki to agree to an intergovernmental conference to prepare the European Union for the challenges of enlargement. In Britain's view, the essential reforms are to limit the growth in the number of Commissioners and to achieve a fairer weight of votes for the larger members.
    We are willing to look at an extension of qualified majority voting on a case-by-case basis. Where QMV may be in Britain's interests, we will support it, but where key areas of national interest are at stake, such as treaty change, border controls, defence, taxation, social security and own resources, we will insist on retaining unanimity.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will the Foreign Secretary take a firmer line on the extension of qualified majority voting? Surely the intergovernmental conference next year should concentrate on enlargement and on building a wider and more flexible Europe, and should not fiddle with details that can be left for a future occasion?
    Mr. Cook: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the IGC should focus on enlargement, and that is what we will argue at Helsinki. However, at Cologne, the three issues that were identified as relevant to enlargement are the three that I set out to the House. There may well be occasions when it would be in our interest to argue for qualified majority voting—for instance, we want reform of the European Court of Justice, and I understand that the Opposition do as well. It will be more difficult to achieve that, so long as every single member state has a block on reform.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to achieve enlargement of the European Union, that must be on a basis on which the institutions of the EU can work? It is therefore necessary to deal with the problem of the number of members of the Commission, and the issues of majority voting and languages. Those issues are fundamental to the efficient
    690
    working of the EU. Is it not absurd for the Conservatives to claim that they want enlargement, but to do everything to stop the means that make it possible?
    Mr. Cook: I addressed that question in the earlier intervention. The Opposition must decide whether they are in favour of enlargement, or whether they want to block the treaty.
    On my hon. Friend's point, it is important that we get those changes. It is particularly important that we make sure that the Commission does not become so large that it becomes ineffective. We are therefore willing to concede Britain's second Commissioner, but only if we get adequate reweighting of the votes in the Council of Ministers. That is a fair package, which I hope that all member states will accept.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Will the Secretary of State address himself to the matter of flexibility in the Government's position? Can he confirm to the House that the Government ruled out any discussion of flexibility on the IGC agenda? Can he also confirm that the Government are opposed to any extension of section 43 of the Amsterdam treaty covering closer co-operation? If that is the case, will he disown the Labour MEPs who voted in the European Parliament in favour of the European Parliament's own resolution on the subject and who seem to favour greater flexibility, alongside the Conservatives?
    Mr. Cook: In the context of the IGC, I stated clearly to the House last week, and I repeat, that, if this IGC is to reach agreement, it will have to focus on enlargement and achieve its target of being completed in time for 2002.
    On flexibility, no, we do not share the view of Opposition Members who want to achieve a pick-and-choose Europe. Such a view is not supported by the applicant countries either. One of the reasons why, at Amsterdam, we were adamant that there should be a veto on any flexibility provision was to prevent other countries forging ahead and leaving us behind. We secured that veto. I was rather surprised to note that, in the hon. Gentleman's speech earlier this week, he seemed to suggest that the Conservatives were in favour of abandoning that veto.

    China
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's current relations with China; and what assistance his Department is giving to promote trade with China. [99956]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): China is an important and growing presence in the world. It has the largest population and is the seventh largest economy in the world. The United Kingdom is the sixth largest investor in China and we share extensive international interests and responsibilities, especially as permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is right that we should seek

    691
    to expand our dialogue and draw China more closely into the international political and trade mechanisms for solving problems and disputes.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that the general view throughout the United Kingdom, in west Yorkshire in particular, is that stronger industrial trade links need to be developed with China, and that, through business, universities and local authorities, we could do more trade in printing, packaging, health products, engineering and other manufacturing, textiles and garments, and tourism? Will my hon. Friend take note of the views expressed by some of those who have visited China about the need to develop trade links? Such links could move the human rights programme even further forward to bring China nearer to the views of the western world. Will my hon. Friend work with the local authorities, business people and universities to improve trade links with China?
    Mr. Battle: Yes, promoting trade with China is a priority and we have mutual interests in key areas of business which we can develop, including the sectors that my hon. Friend mentions, such as engineering, new technology, textiles and the utilities. We are also expanding our diplomatic presence, opening a new consulate general in Chongqing early next year in the south-west region of China. Some local authorities are already engaged there, where we will be the first serious European presence. Trade is an essential part of the process of engagement with China. Economic contact and exchange can play an important part in modernising China and bringing about an improvement in human rights.
    Mr. James Gray: On page 27 of the Foreign Office's annual report on human rights, it clearly states that China's

    "arrest and trial of pro-democracy campaigners at the end of 1998 was unacceptable."
    It continues:
    "the Chinese authorities should not view the peaceful expression of political views as a threat to state security".
    Why, then, was the Chinese human rights campaigner, Wei Jing Shen, who did nothing other than unfurl a pro-democracy banner outside Buckingham palace, arrested? Why, when the Minister was questioned about it, did he state in a written reply:
    "no one was arrested…charged or countercharged."?—[Official Report, 22 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 378.]
    Why was that, and will the Minister not now reconsider his position?
    Mr. Battle: I have answered those questions in detail. My written answer of 6 December states:
    "Following a further review, I am now able to give figures for arrests for activities related to the State Visit…As I made clear in the Debate on the Address, no-one was charged. As the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) said…15 people were arrested in the Metropolitan Police Area…one person was arrested in the City of London. There were no arrests in Cambridge. I reconfirm that no one was charged in any of these police areas."—[Official Report, 6 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 412W.]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), met the person in question during the state visit. We
    692
    continue to share serious concerns about human rights and are vigorously pursuing such cases with the Chinese authorities, and we shall continue to do so. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has spent the past 10 minutes passing notes back to the hon. Gentleman to prompt him to ask the question.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Minister may not be aware that granite imported from China is currently being used to refurbish the Royal Mile in Edinburgh—not that Scotland has run out of granite. How easy is it for local authorities responsible for purchasing such material to assure themselves that its cheap price is not the result of poor labour conditions in China?
    Mr. Battle: There is a forum for raising precisely such questions, not least the International Labour Organisation. Some local authorities have relationships with China. Twin towns, cities and regions provide a context for such dialogue, but it is up to local authorities to negotiate their individual trade deals. I do not know anything about the particular one that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I am not sure why granite has to be taken to Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman has made his point and we shall continue to ensure that the terms of trade are fair and just.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What interpretation does my hon. Friend put on the build-up of military forces on the Chinese mainland opposite Taiwan?
    Mr. Battle: We are watching that situation with urgent concern because, in the past, there have been belligerent noises. We expressed our views in the proper way at the time, and we shall keep the situation under close observation.

    Single European Market
    Mr. Eric Forth: When he next plans to meet the German Chancellor to discuss the European single market; and if he will make a statement. [99957]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to meet the German Chancellor to discuss the single market.
    The single market has created a wider market for United Kingdom goods, comprising 380 million consumers and constituting 40 per cent, of world trade. Such a huge market gives consumers greater choice, and the greater competition and liberalisation of the single market has helped to achieve lower prices. The single market provides for better consumer protection; gives United Kingdom citizens the right to work, study or retire in all the other member states; and has significantly reduced export bureaucracy for business.
    The Government have provided significant input into the Commission's new single market strategy, which is due to be endorsed by the Helsinki summit. The strategy reflects United Kingdom priorities for the single market, including utilities legislation.
    Mr. Forth: I welcome the Minister back to Westminster from his bus trip, with his funny friend,

    693
    to try to stir up Euro-fanaticism among the excited population. However, why has the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs chosen not to have any discussions with the German Chancellor on the single market? On the face of it, it seems that German companies are rightly free to come here and, when the market thinks it appropriate, to take over British companies, whereas the German Chancellor seems perversely to take the view that United Kingdom companies should have no reciprocal right to take over, or merge with, German companies. Does the Minister think that that is not only a bit peculiar and unbalanced, but a direct violation of the single market which he has just been so lavishly praising?
    Mr. Vaz: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about my bus. I am sorry that he was not able to join us—some Conservative party members were on the Eurobus with us, and it was an enormous success. His comments on the single market dealt with commercial matters, and decisions on them will have to be made commercially between companies. The Government have no intention of interfering in those commercial decisions.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's comments. However, in my constituency, the reality is that a number of major German companies have taken over the largest employers, including Rolls-Royce motors. That could be said to be a commercial matter, and there were no political objections to it, but some of us might have liked to have seen rather more effort going into objections. However, that did not happen. Is my hon. Friend aware that that is not the case in the response of German Ministers?
    Mr. Vaz: I can assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom benefits enormously from being part of the single market. There are 700,000 British businesses in the European Union. It is also very important that we should understand that 3.5 million jobs are dependent on us being involved and being part of the single market and the European Union, and that we shall continue to prosper for being part of it.

    Iran
    Mr. Tom Brake: What plans his Department has to improve Britain's relations with Iran; and if he will make a statement. [99960]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Our policy is to encourage the reforms already under way in Iran while pressing for
    694
    improvements in those Iranian policies that are of concern. We hope that the Iranian Foreign Minister, Dr. Kharazzi, will visit in the new year, and that the Foreign Secretary will visit Iran in the spring. The permanent under-secretary for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited Tehran on 28 November.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. When he is having discussions with the Iranian authorities, will he consider the fate of the 13 members of the Jewish community who are detained in Iran? Will he also perhaps raise some very specific issues—such as whether the prisoners are in fact being given access to their families and to kosher food; whether the prisoners will have access to adequate legal representation, if there is a trial; and whether international observers will be allowed at any trial?
    Mr. Hain: Those points are very well made, and taken. We are very concerned about the plight of the 13 Jewish detainees. We do not want them to be scapegoats, and they must experience fair and open proceedings, preferably with international observers. We have repeatedly raised that issue with the Iranian Government. We feel that the reform programme that President Khatami has initiated, and the diplomatic engagement with the Iranians with which we are now proceeding, will allow those points to be taken on board. I certainly hope that, whatever proceedings take place affecting the detainees, there are no severe punishments for anyone concerned and certainly no executions.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Many of my constituents are members of the Baha'i community. They regularly raise with me their anxieties about the Iranian Government's persecution of, and discrimination against, members of the Baha'i faith in Iran. Will the Minister give an assurance that, during the visits that he announced for early next year, the concerns and human rights of members of the Baha'i community in Iran are raised at the highest level, and that the Iranian Government are urged to treat them fairly and equally?
    Mr. Hain: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have already raised those matters with the Iranian Government at the highest level. It is important that those of us in the west who have had difficult relations with Iran in the past encourage the process of change and reform that President Khatami is leading. It is in the interests of the Iranian people and of regional stability—and, indeed, that of the world—for the reform programme to succeed. I am sure that respect for the human rights of the Baha'is and others will help the success of that programme.

Chechnya
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury): What discussions he has had with the Government of Russia concerning the war in Chechnya. [99966]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The Russian ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Office this morning. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), asked him to convey to Moscow the alarm and dismay of the United Kingdom and its partners at the recent turn of events in Chechnya.
I wholeheartedly condemn yesterday's ultimatum to the residents of Grozny to flee or be destroyed. We have, with our partners, repeatedly recorded our concern at the effect of the military offensive on the civilian population. We would deplore any action to intensify rather than limit that military offensive.
I spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister last Friday, when I pressed him for an early date for a visit to the region by the chairman-in-office of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I was pleased that, over the weekend, Mr. Ivanov agreed that the visit could take place next week, but it is harder to envisage positive prospects for the OSCE' s attempt to establish a political process if the military violence continues to escalate.
We have sought a closer working relationship through dialogue with Russia. It is in Europe's interest that we should help create a democratic and stable Russia that is engaged with the outside world. That must remain the right strategic goal for our policy on Russia, but we cannot continue to assist Russia if Russia does not respect basic humanitarian norms.
If Russia proceeds with its threat to Grozny on Saturday, we will expect the Helsinki Council to consider the future of the assistance to Russia under the TACIS programme, which provides technical and financial help for the modernisation of the society and the economy in Russia.
Yesterday, the International Monetary Fund management decided not to recommend disbursement of the next £400 million tranche to Russia. In the current circumstances, I welcome that decision.
Britain understands that Russia has legitimate concerns about terrorism and violent crime in Chechnya, but we cannot understand how Russia imagines that it can root out terrorism by attacking a whole population. We appeal to Russia not to escalate its military campaign in a way that will further undermine its relations with the outside world and further damage its own national interests.
Mr. Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. However, does he share my alarm at the deterioration of the situation since he spoke to Foreign Minister Ivanov? There has been further aggression, and there are predictions that the war could last for many months. The citizens of Grozny have been told to leave by Saturday. The Foreign Secretary acknowledged that that was unacceptable, and I am sure that he knows that many people in Grozny cannot leave—many are old or sick, or terrified of leaving the city in case they are caught up in the bombing. The Russian authorities' promise of a safe corridor is worthless. Will he convey to the Russian
696
authorities in even stronger terms—such as those that he used to the authorities in Kosovo—the seriousness of the situation?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt about the strength with which my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have expressed our views to Russian Ministers. While we do not have information on the ground, many thousands of civilians must still be sheltering in Grozny. Many of them will be elderly or vulnerable; for them, escape by foot in winter conditions is simply not practical. In those circumstances, we believe that the Russians must withdraw their threat; to persist with it would clearly breach humanitarian obligations.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The whole House will welcome my right hon. Friend's robust statement. We are all casting around for instruments that might have some effect on the inhuman course of action pursued by the Russian Government. The withdrawal of the tranche by the IMF may not amount to much, because it affects only whether money is transferred from one account to another in Washington. When Russia entered the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, it gave clear undertakings about its human rights obligations. It appears to be in breach of those undertakings. Is it my right hon. Friend's view that the Council of Europe should reconsider its position and possibly suspend Russia?
Mr. Cook: We are awaiting the report of Mr. Gil-Robles, the rapporteur, who went to Chechnya and the surrounding area on 2 and 3 December to report on conditions there. It is certainly a requirement of membership of the Council of Europe to observe standards of humanitarian behaviour and minority rights. It is for the Council of Europe, and for us as a member of it, to consider the report carefully.
Mr. John Maples: We share the Foreign Secretary's concern over the Russians' brutal tactics in Chechnya. The deaths, destruction and suffering that result are on an unacceptable scale. We agree with the Foreign Secretary that the threat to bomb civilians who stay in Grozny this weekend is appalling.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the next tranche of money for the TACIS programme might be suspended. Have there been discussions with our allies about the possibility of other measures being taken to persuade the Russians to change what they are doing? What humanitarian relief is the international community able to provide? In the context of his ethical foreign policy, how would the Foreign Secretary explain to a Chechen refugee the difference between what the Russians are doing in Chechnya and what Milosevic did in Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: We vigorously condemn what the Russians are doing in Chechnya and we vigorously condemned what Milosevic did in Kosovo. We are seeking in every possible way to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of that brutality and persecution. It is not easy to get aid through. We have made a £500,000 donation to the Red Cross effort and we are considering what contribution we can make to the UN agencies. In the meantime, I continue to press Mr. Ivanov to ensure that the international

697
humanitarian agencies have full access to the refugees inside and outside Chechnya. We shall be considering what further measures can be taken with our close allies over the next 24 hours. I have already discussed the issue with Madeleine Albright.
Mr. David Winnick: No one can have any illusions about the forces who are fighting the Russians. I am sure that my right hon. Friend remembers the savage beheading of three British citizens and one New Zealander. However, does my right hon. Friend recognise how deeply shocked those of us who accept the legitimacy of what the Russians are trying to do are by their brutal indifference to the sufferings of civilians in the area? If my right hon. Friend, together with the United States and others, can communicate that to the leadership of Russia, perhaps it will do some good.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the terrorist and brutal violent crimes that have given rise to Russia's serious and legitimate concerns about the situation in Chechnya. Five British citizens have been kidnapped over the past year and three of them have been brutally murdered. Like my hon. Friend, I find it hard to understand how the current military offensive will tackle that problem. If one wants to defeat terrorism, one has to isolate the terrorists. My anxiety is that the behaviour of the Russian military in Chechnya is likely to create a radicalised younger generation who may well be more readily recruited as terrorists.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the unpalatable and perhaps embarrassing truth that we—I do not exempt myself or my party from this criticism—have been silent for too long in the face of the mediaeval barbarism being inflicted by the Russian Government on the citizens of Chechnya? Is it not an outrage to issue an ultimatum involving a blanket threat, with the prospect of a blanket attack on civilians, many of whom are too old, too ill and too frightened to escape? If the Russians persist in their brutal treatment of innocent civilians in Chechnya, will the Government consider all possible political, diplomatic and economic responses?
Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's characterisation of the threat to the residents of Grozny. I have seen the text of the leaflet, which says that those who remain will be viewed as terrorists and bandits; they will be destroyed by artillery and aviation. The people to whom that is addressed include thousands of elderly and vulnerable people who cannot do anything about that threat—they cannot leave by Saturday.
I do not accept that we have been silent on the issue. We have repeatedly recorded our concern, and I have expressed it personally to Mr. Ivanov on a number of occasions. However, I would accept that obviously we have failed to get that message across. Therefore, we must consider stronger ways of doing so, consistent with maintaining what must be a strategic priority—to maintain the dialogue that we need to help create a democratic and stable Russia.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Should we not be a little candid with each other? Where did the Russians get
698
the idea that high-altitude bombing, to save casualties at home and political embarrassment, might be a way of conducting modern warfare? Where did they get the idea of a military offensive against civilian populations? It could not have been, could it, from NATO—from the marketplace at Nis, from Zastava, from Pancevo and from the centre of Belgrade? In any talks, ought not we to be candid about the fact that NATO has at least given them the excuse to do these terrible things?
Mr. Cook: I would wholly repudiate any parallelism between the conduct of the Russian military in Chechnya and the NATO bombing in the context of Kosovo. I point out to my hon. Friend that at least 300,000 Chechens—probably more—have been rendered refugees and displaced people by the action of the Russian military. In Kosovo, 800,000 people were driven out of Kosovo not by NATO, but by the forces of Belgrade. Those 800,000 people would still be in tents in Macedonia and Albania if we had followed my hon. Friend's advice.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my appreciation to the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on this grave crisis, which may yet prove to be the touchstone of the Foreign Secretary's ethical foreign policy? Can he assure the House that, at the forthcoming European summit in Helsinki, he will allow not just token measures to be applied, but the most rigorous sanctions? Is it not the case that, if the Russians get away with indiscriminate mass murder—as they are perpetrating now—they will be encouraged to assert themselves and throw their weight around not only within the federation but, potentially, outside it? When the Foreign Secretary looks at the question of a stable Russia, will he take into account the fact that this must mean fulfilling the aspirations and special needs of particular peoples within the federation in a flexible manner?
Mr. Cook: We respect the integrity of the Russian Federation, and nobody is seeking to change that. Part of the conditions for membership of the Council of Europe—of which Russia is a member—is respect for those minority rights. If this threat is carried out on Saturday, the European Council—which will be meeting that day in Helsinki—must respond with those measures that are available to it.
I have indicated that we will be asking the European Union to consider the future of the technical and financial help that we provide to Russia. I stress that not all of that is available to be withdrawn without damaging our national interest. Part of it, for instance, helps fund the destruction of chemical weapons within Russia. We are not going to withdraw that programme. However, we must look clearly and firmly at how we can indicate our dismay and alarm at the current behaviour within Chechnya.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I share my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's alarm and dismay at Russia's ultimatum to the Chechen people, and say to him that I think that the bombing of civilians is always wrong. Has not NATO's illegal bombing of Yugoslavia robbed us of any moral authority to intervene on behalf of Chechens? The Russians have learned from NATO, as my

699
hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said: bomb from a safe distance and disregard civilians. Let us not forget that NATO bombs killed 1,500 civilians in Yugoslavia, and 4,000 were injured. People are still dying from cluster bombs dropped by NATO.
Mr. Cook: I would wholly repudiate the idea that NATO's action in Kosovo was in any way illegal. Let me say gently to my hon. Friend that, if she really wants to convey dismay and alarm to Moscow, and to be heard, she should not couple that sentiment to words that Moscow would dearly like to be said in this Chamber.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is difficult to discern Russia's self-interest in its actions in Chechnya, but will he comment on Prime Minister Putin's view that it is difficult to identify a Government of any sort with whom to negotiate in Chechnya? The situation is perhaps analogous to Somalia. Will he also comment on the suggestion that the west should be enabling the international community to get at least the sick, the frail and the mentally ill out of Grozny before the Russian ultimatum expires? Does he agree that this is one of the consequences of excluding Russia from the political process when NATO decided to take its action over Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: Russia was not excluded in the political process that led to that decision; it played a full part in the contact group and at Rambouillet. Of course, we did not consult Russia about the decision taken in NATO, and I do not imagine that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will want to press that point.
On assisting the evacuation of Grozny, the fact is that there are very few humanitarian agencies operating in Chechnya and I do not think that we could mount such an operation by Saturday even if we took the view that it
700
would be the right thing to do. Plainly, the correct course is for Russia to refrain from the threat that it has made, and we will continue to press for that right through to Saturday.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: As the Yeltsin regime increasingly bears less resemblance to a democratic Government than it does to the bloodthirsty tyrannies of Stalin and some of the tsars, will Her Majesty's Government take all practicable measures to avert humanitarian tragedy?
Mr. Cook: We will certainly put every possible effort into coping with the humanitarian consequences of Russia's actions and take every opportunity to ensure that it understands the international community's deep concern and the damage that it is doing to its own interests.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Russia is very close to political and economic disaster and that international organisations say that organised crime runs half its economy? However much many of us may worry about the wisdom of the particular Russian tactics, the sad fact is that, if the legitimate elected Government of Russia are seen to be defeated by the principal centre of organised crime within the Russian Federation, the consequences not only for Russia but for all of us are incalculable.
Mr. Cook: My difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's point is that I find it very hard to see how this exercise can end in something that can be claimed as a victory for Russia. I do not see the present strategy as rooting out the terrorists or establishing a peaceful, democratic and stable Chechnya as part of the Russian Federation. That is why those of us who wish Russia well would like to see a change in its strategy towards Chechnya.

Rural Development
3.48 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I am this afternoon announcing a radical redirection of support for agriculture and a significant increase in expenditure on rural development measures under the European Union rural development regulation—the second pillar of the common agricultural policy.
My decisions follow the comprehensive consultation launched in January with farming, rural, environmental and other interests over how to implement in the United Kingdom the common agricultural policy reforms then under negotiation. The Government are committed to reforming agricultural supports so that they are less distortionary and more closely reflect the public benefits that agriculture provides. We want to offer farmers constructive help to enhance and diversify their businesses in response to changing market circumstances.
The new rural development regulation, promoted under the United Kingdom presidency, provides member states with a range of measures, jointly funded with the European Union, to advance environmentally beneficial farming practices, to modernise and restructure their farming industries and to support off-farm rural development. That is an important part of the Government's rural policy, and has been developed in collaboration with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the environment and countryside agencies.
Our plans for the seven-year period are ambitious. For England it will mean a total of £1.6 billion in expenditure, a 60 per cent. increase over seven years. We have given priority to involving our English regional partners, and the plan will include a separate section for each region, setting out locally identified priorities. The devolved Administrations will set out their own plans for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Four sources of revenue will cover the increased expenditure. The first source is the funding that my Department already allocates to existing schemes that will become part of the rural development regulation. Similar budgets are held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The second source will be the European Union's allocation of funds for the rural development regulation. The EU's initial contribution to the United Kingdom amounts to some £100 million a year. That figure disappointingly reflects the low historic level of expenditure on rural development inherited from the previous Government. I achieved, through negotiation, a 30 per cent. increase, and intend to press for a further increase for the UK when the allocations of EU rural development funding are reviewed in 2002.
The third source of funding will be the redirection, or modulation, into the RDR of a small percentage of the £1.6 billion in direct production subsidies paid to UK farmers under the CAP commodity regimes. In 2001, 2.5 per cent. of payments will be modulated; that will rise to 3 per cent. in 2002, 3.5 per cent. in 2003 and 2004, and 4.5 per cent. in 2005 and 2006. Modulation will apply at a flat rate and to all direct subsidies to farmers under the CAP. All of that money will be redirected to expenditure through the rural development regulation.
702
The fourth source of funding will be the full match funding by the Government of the modulated element. In other words, each £1 redirected, or modulated, to the rural development regulation will be matched by an additional £1 of new expenditure from the Government.
Together, those four sources will result in substantial extra funds for environmental benefits and farm diversification. Total expenditure on rural development will rise to £295 million for England in 2006–07, and over the whole seven-year period will be around £1.6 billion.
Expenditure plans for England have yet to be finalised and there is of course room for some flexibility. However, the House will want to know that I plan to allocate over the lifetime of the plan the following indicative amounts, starting with £1 billion for agri-environmental schemes. By 2006–07, spending on agri-environment will be double the current level. Of that £1 billion, I plan to allocate around £500 million for the countryside stewardship scheme, a scheme open across England that pays farmers to bring about environmental improvements. I plan to allocate around £140 million for organic farm conversion.
In addition, I plan to allocate £85 million for woodlands on farms, and a £22 million increase in the woodland grant scheme; more than £40 million to encourage better marketing and processing of agricultural products; around £30 million for the growing of energy crops; and more than £20 million in aid for training to improve the skills of farmers and farm workers relating to environmental land management and other aspects of diversification
I also plan to allocate around £150 million for a new rural enterprise scheme to promote rural development on and off the farm. The rural enterprise scheme will complement the new enterprise grants scheme, which was announced in July by my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, although the rural enterprise scheme is not confined to assisted areas.
There will be a successor scheme to the hill livestock compensatory allowance to help hill farmers in less-favoured areas, and a consultation on the arrangements for the new scheme is under way. The normal annual review of hill farmer support will take place in the autumn and will include, among other factors, the impact of today's announcement.
The rural development regulation will include policy instruments to help farmers to enhance their farm businesses. The rural enterprise scheme, processing and marketing grants and aid for training will complement my Department's existing policies to promote farm diversification, and to encourage collaboration and innovation across the agri-food chain. All that will be of real help to new entrants, including young farmers, as they work to develop entrepreneurial farm businesses.
Further to this statement, I shall announce in a parliamentary answer the detail of changes to the administration of certain CAP commodity regimes resulting from Agenda 2000.
The rural development regulation represents the long-term future of public supports for farm businesses and the rural economy. It presents a significant opportunity for improvement of the rural environment and the countryside

703
landscape. It demonstrates the Government's commitment to rural communities, and it will set the agenda for further reform of the CAP in years to come.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I thank the Minister for making his statement available to me a little while before he made it here. It presents a complex package, which I hope the House will have an early opportunity to debate.
Many of the long-term aims to which the statement refers will command widespread support, but I want to ask four questions. I want to ask about the amount of money involved, the type of scheme that will be supported, the timing of the changes, and their effects on British farmers.
First, will the Minister explain more clearly than he did in his statement exactly how much new money will be involved, as opposed to cash that is moved from one pocket to another? In September, he claimed that a package was worth half a billion pounds; on examination, it turned out to contain only £1 million of new money. Following that claim, there is some cynicism in rural communities. A farmer who filled out his IACS form—the integrated administration and control system form—on the basis that Labour Ministers use for announcing spending programmes would soon find himself in jail.
Secondly, how much of the new money to be spent under the rural development regulation will actually reach farmers? How much of the total package has been funded by cuts in payments already being made to farmers? Will the Minister guarantee that other existing spending on the countryside will not be reduced when the new measures are introduced? Will the new rural enterprise scheme be controlled by the Ministry? If not, by whom will it be controlled? What proportion of the new money can be spent on article 33 measures? Is there any guarantee that support for hill farmers will at least be maintained? How many more bureaucrats will be employed to administer these schemes?
Thirdly, although we support a move towards more environmental schemes, I should like to know why the Government think that the right time to cut production payments is when farm incomes have just suffered three years of crippling falls.
Fourthly, and finally, this package does nothing to address the crisis that is destroying British livestock farming today. It does nothing for pig farmers who are wondering whether their businesses can survive beyond Christmas. It does nothing for dairy farmers who have been hit by falling prices and by a Government who let their competitors abroad have a higher milk quota when they cannot even meet home demand. It does nothing for beef farmers whose hopes of rebuilding export markets have been undermined by one Government blunder after another. It does nothing for sheep farmers on the hills whose incomes are down to £2,000 a year, and who now face more uncertainty in regard to their support payments. Does the Minister realise that unless he acts today to help Britain's livestock farmers, few of them will be around to take part in the new schemes that he has just announced?
Mr. Brown: As usual, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the announcement before turning to his long list of specific complaints. I tried to help him by giving him the statement in advance, and many of his questions have been answered by the statement. I shall try to do his points justice, however.
704
The hon. Gentleman referred to difficulties in the livestock sector. Those difficulties stem from the BSE problems that resulted in a national tragedy. As I have said before, a little humility from the party that presided over that crisis would be welcome. The livestock sector, more than any other, stands to benefit from the measures that I have announced. Even pig farmers cannot but benefit. Although they can apply for the schemes that have been announced, they are not the recipients of the payments that are being modulated.
The hon. Gentleman asked about sums for the use of article 33—I gave those figures in my statement. He also asked about control of specific schemes. I intend to involve our regional partners in the administration of the schemes. In England, the boundaries will parallel the boundaries of the Government offices for the regions. There was detailed consultation on the measures before they were drawn together for the statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked which budgets are being cut. There is no proposal in today's statement to cut any budget. The situation is quite the reverse. I have announced new money and a significant expansion of a range of regimes. The departmental element is subject to the comprehensive spending review round, but we are submitting the whole prospectus to the European Union in good faith. It is our seven-year plan.
I totally reject what the hon. Gentleman said about the farm aid package announced earlier this year. He asked how much new money was in today's statement. For every pound modulated in England, the Treasury will provide another pound of new money from new funds specifically for this scheme. The moneys for England will be spent in England; the moneys for Scotland will be spent in Scotland; the moneys for Wales will be spent in Wales; and, the moneys for Northern Ireland will be spent in Northern Ireland. Each pound modulating on a rising profile of expenditure will be matched pound for pound.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a false prospectus and Ministers in jail. In fact, a former Cabinet Minister is in jail. Another former Minister is currently before the courts in a very entertaining libel action. A political party exists that is funded by the ambassador of a foreign Government. Recently, a candidate withdrew in disgraceful circumstances from the forthcoming election for a mayor of London. None of those individuals has anything to do with the governing party.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I welcome absolutely everything that my right hon. Friend has said. He is clearly listening to the true voice of the countryside. Does he agree that rural parish and town councils have a crucial role to play in assessing and developing the needs of their local communities in order to produce plans that can be funded under these excellent initiatives?
Mr. Brown: That is true. I am keen to ensure that schemes and regional priorities, which will differ in different parts of the country, reflect the ambitions of individual communities, particularly the agricultural communities most closely affected. I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for today's announcement.
Mr. Colin Breed: I, too, broadly welcome the proposals. Of course, the Liberal Democrats have been advocating many of them for some

705
time. Nevertheless, we have two concerns. First, we are concerned that the administrative systems often become very bureaucratic. We would not want more civil servants operating or administering the system in Whitehall than there are farmers implementing it on the ground. The proposals need to be user friendly, openly acceptable and understandable; and the decision making will, we hope, be swift.
Secondly, we are a little surprised that there is no mention of an early retirement scheme. We applaud the Minister's view that there need to be fresh faces and fresh thinking in farming at this time. We would have liked some proposal for such a scheme. Will the Minister consider that and come back at some stage during this Session to find out whether an early retirement scheme for farmers may be possible?
Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says about the Liberal Democrat party having advocated these measures for some time is right. Previous Liberal Democrat agriculture spokesmen have advanced those arguments to me. I have given the indicative figures for the scheme spend. Of course, I hope to keep the administration as accessible as possible and the costs to a minimum.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asks about an early retirement scheme. As he and others who have followed these debates will know, I am a strong supporter of such a scheme, if we can get one to work and to be value for money. We have tried hard to shape such a scheme, but we have not succeeded. Therefore, it is not part of the package that I have announced and I cannot hold out any prospects for it, for England at any rate. It is better to say so clearly now so that there will be no expectations about such a scheme in the future, as I do not think that it will be possible.
Dr. George Turner: I welcome today's announcement, but will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the development of the countryside stewardship scheme? I know from experience in my constituency that the scheme is welcomed not only by the farming community but much more widely. It represents a partnership between the farming community and people who, in many cases, used to work on farms. Can he give us any hope that that type of activity will be expanded in years to come? It is particularly welcomed by tourists and everyone who can benefit from it.
Mr. Brown: I am doubling expenditure on the scheme, and that announcement will be welcome to the farming community. The scheme is oversubscribed, which demonstrates how popular it is, and it provides farm businesses with a steady and fixed income stream. They are working in partnership with the Government to provide goods that are easily defended to the electorate—the environmental benefits that we know our citizens want.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister understand—I have a sneaking suspicion that he might—that the proposals that he has announced will generally be welcomed? They are a significant step in the right direction. However, I am not sure whether they are as radical as he thought. I enter two caveats.
706
First, when the Minister makes his announcement, will he please try to give the information on an annual, financial year basis? It is difficult to absorb the figures. As I understand it, they run for not only the next Parliament but the one after that, so the £500 million for the countryside stewardship scheme is over seven years and amounts to about £60 million or £70 million a year. Undoubtedly, that scheme is good in principle, but—this is my second caveat—before the Minister commits large additional sums to it, I urge him to look into the bureaucracy of administering and monitoring it. I think that something like a quarter of the money that is spent on countryside stewardship goes on monitoring. Could we see more of it going into bringing more benefits for the environment and farmers?
Mr. Brown: I do not want to overburden all these excellent schemes with administrative costs and I will be taking a hard look at those. However, we must ensure that the schemes are being implemented properly and that they represent good value for money. I do not propose the expenditure of the same figure year on year. The hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture and I know that he fully understands that the European moneys effectively come on a flat profile—the same sum, with some small allowance for inflation, each year. The expenditure in my Department is profiled similarly and is, in any event, subject to the normal public spending rounds. The two new figures—the sums modulated and the match funding that accompanies the modulation—are on a rising profile. The schemes will therefore steadily expand over the period. It is my intention to publish an explanatory booklet setting all that out, with the indicative figures, so that everyone can see the rising profile of expenditure year on year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the countryside stewardship scheme. Farmers are enthusiastic about the schemes and, as I know that he understands, they are oversubscribed. Today's statement is significant for two reasons. It provides new money in an intelligent way that supports farm businesses without coupling the payments to production and, every bit as significant, it points the way forward for reform of the CAP.
Mr. John McFall: I assure my right hon. Friend that the offer of new money will go down well with Scottish farmers. Will match funding be available to Scottish farmers and will it be ring-fenced so that it is spent entirely on agriculture?
Mr. Brown: The schemes are shaped in such a way that they are almost entirely focused on farm-based businesses. The money that will be spent in Scotland is ring-fenced for Scotland. Of course, the expenditure heads are devolved now to the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, but every pound modulated in Scotland will be matched by a further pound from the UK Exchequer. That must be welcome news for farmers in Scotland, as it will be throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tom King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the more he seeks to make the figures sound very big by adding together seven years of expenditure, the more I form the impression that the figures are probably not as big as he would like some of his hon. Friends to believe? In view of the catastrophic

707
situation of so many in the farming industry, what is the right hon. Gentleman's best estimate of new money for year 1?
Mr. Brown: I intend to publish the figures rather than give an estimate. I am trying to explain to the House that the profile rises over the period as a result of the way in which modulation works. The total sums, including the modulated amounts and the match funding, represent over the period a 60 per cent. increase on what would have been spent had we not made use of modulation and match funding. The amount that we will spend at the end of the period compared with the amount at the beginning of the period represents a more than doubling of current expenditure.
Mr. Paul Marsden: I know that struggling farmers in Shropshire will warmly welcome the announcement. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on all his endeavours in the past few months. I welcome the new money for organic conversion. Will he reaffirm the Government's long-term commitment to improving the lot of organic farmers and making money more widely available for conversion?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the extra sums that we intend to spend on the organic farm conversion scheme. Although I have given the House the total figure, my hon. Friend will realise that it will cover more organic farmers as the scheme develops. As it is a conversion scheme, as farmers leave the scheme, new farmers will be able to come in so the impact will be bigger than the figures might at first sight suggest.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister is well aware of the state of the farming industry in Northern Ireland, and he knows that any money, especially new money, is invaluable to farming. The Minister said:
"The third source … will be the redirection, or modulation, into the RDR of a small percentage of £1.6 billion in direct production subsidies paid to UK farmers".
Does that mean that money will immediately cease being paid to farmers who are currently receiving it? That has caused an uproar this afternoon in my country. As the Minister knows, I now have some responsibilities as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. There are serious fears that the farmers who are in most need of money will have money removed from them in the short term as a result of the announcement today.
Mr. Brown: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. Every pound modulated in Northern Ireland will be spent in Northern Ireland and will be matched by an extra pound from the United Kingdom Treasury. In other words, it is impossible for farming, collectively, in the Province to lose out under the scheme. That is the crucial point. How the money is to be spent on schemes or allocated between different interests in the farm sector in Northern Ireland is now a devolved matter, in which I know that the hon. Gentleman will take a particular interest.
Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): Has my right hon. Friend noticed the glum faces among Opposition Members,
708
who have become used to exploiting the hardship in which farmers have recently found themselves? I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement and his personal efforts—as well as those of his team—in securing greater investment from Europe. The statement and the new set of arrangements will help farmers to see beyond the immediate crisis to the future; it will give them the opportunity to take part in that future. Will my right hon. Friend pass a message to the regional development agencies about the role that they can play in rewarding and promoting entrepreneurship in the rural economy?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to the right point. In my statement, I indicated the way forward and I want to involve the regional partners fully in what is being done. We are trying to show the way forward for rural farm businesses and to provide supports that are decoupled from production. The scheme is funded partly through modulation, but it attracts match funding from the Treasury. It is impossible for any region not to be a beneficiary of the announcement.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Many Opposition Members would welcome the scheme if we could properly understand it. The difficulty is that modulation of direct grants means a cut in direct grants and a recycling of that money to other pockets. That is not new money. Will the Minister help me and Britain's farmers by telling us how much new money will go into the scheme, either in year 1 or year 7? Just give us a figure.
Mr. Brown: The sums that are being modulated rise over the period. At the end of the scheme, we estimate that the sum being spent will be £100 million in England. That will be matched by £100 million of new money. It will be a rising profile of expenditure over the period. In the final year, 2006–07, the outturn will be £295 million, which is an extremely large sum of money.
Mr. Mark Todd: I join colleagues in welcoming the statement, but want to draw attention to the concerns that have been expressed about the delivery of the schemes. First, it is important that they should be integrated with other farm-targeted business assistance run by other Departments and also with the work of the regional development agencies.
Secondly, I share the concern that early retirement schemes have been firmly banged on the head. I am aware that several farmers in my area would welcome some way of moving out of the farm sector, and had thought that the scheme might provide a route. Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the balance of opinion on the means of modulation in the consultation exercise? From the parts of the process that I have seen, my impression is that there was a strong feeling that larger farmers and greater beneficiaries of aid schemes should suffer more than smaller farmers from any modulation.
Mr. Brown: In response to the consultation exercise, a numerical majority of farmers in England—I was responsible only for the consultation in England—were in favour of modulation in principle. The farming unions are cautious about modulation and have made two points to me: they want to know how the fruits of modulation will be spent and they want an assurance that the money will

709
be spent on farm businesses, or matters of importance to such businesses. I can give the House that assurance today.
The National Farmers Union has made it very clear to me that it would consider modulation to be reasonable only if it were a lever for match funding. I can give the House the assurance that, for every pound modulated, there is another pound from the Exchequer, so this is match funding and new money.
I accept what my hon. Friend says about the early retirement scheme. I have tried very hard to make it work, but we cannot do so in a way that would represent value for money, so it is better to say, candidly, that there will be no such scheme.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The Minister will be aware of the severe difficulties that livestock farmers in upland areas are facing. Will he give the House the assurance that, when his study of the hill livestock compensatory allowances is completed, whatever money it indicates as necessary for the payments of future HLCAs will not be top sliced from the money that he has spoken of this afternoon?
Mr. Brown: The enhancement of the less-favoured areas regime, which the Government have carried out for the past two years, has for each year been a stand-alone announcement as part of an aid package to help the uplands through difficult times. There is much in this package that will help the upland farmers. The LFAs—some of them, at any rate—are in some of the most outstandingly beautiful parts of the countryside. It should be possible to draw on the countryside stewardship schemes, the farm diversification programme and the other measures that I have announced today to enhance farm incomes in the less-favoured areas.
There will be an annual review of the hill livestock compensatory allowances at the end of the summer, as there is every year, except that, this year, such a review was pre-empted by my announcement of the extra £60 million—an announcement that was widely welcomed by hard-pressed hill farmers.
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Having been a recent visitor to my constituency, he knows that it has 300 farms. May I ask him, in the cause of joined-up government, to consider the university for industry for the reskilling and retraining element of the rural package? As it is impossible to have a university for industry hub in a rural area, he might consider using Wye college—which has an astonishing IT background—for retraining and reskilling. The college is not in my constituency, but I have a very warm feeling for it.
Mr. Brown: I will take that as an early representation on the shape of the schemes, region by region. I want to ensure that, as far as possible, we focus the training moneys, the marketing grants and the farm enterprise scheme on young and innovative entrants to agriculture, so that we really can reshape farm businesses so that they are more market oriented and look to the future rather than back to circumstances that pertained 50 years ago.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Minister accept that the failure to reverse the disastrous legacy of
710
the previous Government has meant that there is a cumulative effect on farmers, especially livestock farmers? This week, this month, this winter, they are facing their bank managers and simply do not know whether they can survive. How quickly does the Minister estimate that his package will kick in to reverse the disastrous decline in farm incomes, especially in the less-favoured areas—and will he please tell the banks?
Mr. Brown: The modulation receipts come on stream in the year 2001–02. We shall submit our proposals to the European Union at the end of this year. Funding will continue for the existing schemes, but we anticipate a six-month pause as the old schemes are wound up and the new schemes are put in place. We hope to be able to make a start, later on next year, on the new package of measures that I have announced today.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): Obviously, the farmers of Lancashire will welcome this good news today, and I am sure that the NFU in the north-west will fully support the proposals that have been laid before the House. There is a great danger that my right hon. Friend may become the patron saint of farming if he is not careful, because he seems to be coming regularly to the Chamber with very good news which is much welcomed. As my constituency encompasses a variety of farmers, from the arable farmers on the Lancashire plain right up to the hill farmers on the moors, many farmers in my constituency will be very pleased with today's announcement.
Will my right hon. Friend reiterate for the benefit of the Opposition that there is new money for fanning and that it will go some way towards ending postcode farming grants? I am worried because my area has no objective assistance status. However, if I have understood my right hon. Friend's announcement correctly, farmers will be able to apply for new money whereas previously they were not able to do so. That will be welcome if it is true.
Mr. Brown: As for the danger that my hon. Friend alerts me to, it is not the biggest one that I face. I shall live with it.
My hon. Friend is right: this is new money to extend across the United Kingdom. Because the payments are decoupled from production—
Mr. Yeo: How much?
Mr. Brown: I have just explained that the figure will be on a rising profile. I have said that I will publish a table setting out how the profile will rise and I have said that, at the end of the period, total spend will be £295 million per year. I have tried to explain the figure in a number of different ways, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be able to comprehend it, but that might be because he does not want to. In any event, I can do more than say that I shall put into the public domain a table setting everything out, so that even Conservative Members can discern it.
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not look favourably upon repetition.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman's announcement about funds for diversification

711
have any implications for the planning system? If it does, will it affect designation for areas of outstanding natural beauty or conflict with county structure plans? If so, what advice will he give to local government, or are the Government planning to take more powers unto themselves?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady is on to a good point. Clearly, farm diversifications that involve structural change to farm businesses, which is a perfectly good way for farm businesses to reshape and to become more market-oriented, have to be compatible with the planning system. I hope that the planning system will also shape itself to become more compatible with my ambitions for the successor scheme to the objective 5b scheme and the article 33 scheme—or the rural enterprise scheme, as it is now called.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister is being unduly modest about early retirements. In Dorset, farmers are taking early retirement at an enormous rate under his present policies. Will he consider carefully the effect of the over-30-months scheme on extensification of cattle? In Dorset, before BSE, many farmers in areas of outstanding natural beauty and on heath land fattened cattle for a long time without using concentrates. That was exactly the best thing to do to avoid BSE. However, unless the over-30-months scheme is relaxed, they will not be able to do that. When will the scheme be relaxed?
Mr. Brown: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is trying, in his mild-mannered way, to make a political point about the early retirement scheme. I have considered it carefully and we cannot make it work in a way that is good value for public money. It is better to say that now, so that we do not get behavioural change and so that people do not wait for a scheme that will not come on stream.
The average age of farmers in the United Kingdom is 57, which is the same as across the European Union. Behind that figure are many farmers in their early 60s who will want to think carefully about how long they will stay in farming and about the arrangements that they need to make for retirement and for their succession. That is why I have made this statement as clearly as I have today.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the future of the over-30-months scheme. As he knows, it is a very powerful public protection measure in this country and the Government are professionally advised by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee about it. I am awaiting advice from that committee.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I apologise if the Minister thinks that he has
712
already answered this question, but can I check whether the new match funding for Scotland will be in addition to the entire existing Scottish block?
Mr. Brown: The match funding is in addition to the sum modulated from the current compensation payments for price cuts. The sum across the United Kingdom is £1.6 billion. Match funding applies to the modulated amount alone; it does not apply to what is currently spent in the Scotland Office's block grant on agriculture, nor does it apply to Scotland's share of the money from the European Union.
Sir Robert Smith: The Minister said in his statement that the review of hill livestock compensatory allowances would be made in the autumn. My calendar shows that we are in December and, thus, in the winter months—so will he tell farmers who rely on those payments when they will have a concrete idea of what to expect?
Mr. Brown: The payments are made in January, and of course this January they will be made at the enhanced rates because last autumn's review was pre-empted by my aid package. The 55 per cent. increase, which was an extra £60 million, was widely welcomed by hard-pressed hill farmers.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: As I understand it, the match funding is new money from the Treasury—yes? Is it also correct that one Parliament cannot commit another Parliament? Yes. Will the Minister now say exactly how much he has negotiated from the Treasury, as he will have had to do, to provide match funding for that first year? How much in pounds sterling?
Mr. Brown: I am not sure what the question is. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me how much comes on stream in the first year of modulation, I can tell him that the year will be 2001–02 and the sum will be about £34 million.
Mr. Fabricant: Thirty-four million!
Mr. Brown: That is doubled—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is trying to shout out the answers.
Madam Speaker: Order. When hon. Members have asked questions, they ought to listen to the answers.
Mr. Brown: We anticipate the fruits of modulation to be £34 million, and therefore the match funding for the United Kingdom will be £34 million. There is match funding, pound for pound, so £34 million from modulation in the first year, 2001–02, will be matched by £34 million from the Treasury. That is a profile of expenditure rising to the figures that I gave the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) earlier.

Point of Order
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on whether you might extend the scope of Standing Order No. 20, on giving time for hon. Members to put points to you.
My constituents have been trying to arrange a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for some time. They believe that the civil service is feeding the hon. Gentleman incorrect information about a road scheme—the brown route—and they have asked me to hand information directly to the Minister. Unfortunately, the Minister's civil servants will not allow me to see him simply to hand over the information. I wonder whether Standing Order No. 20—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has the wrong Standing Order. He refers to Standing Order No. 20, but I think that he may mean Standing Order No. 24, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House. Is that the one? Which is the right Standing Order?
Mr. Bruce: Either one, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I feel that it must be a rather bogus point of order if the hon. Gentleman has not even taken the trouble to find the right Standing Order. I shall proceed with the main business.

Orders of the Day

  Freedom of Information Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Third Report of Session 1998–99 on the Freedom of Information draft Bill (HC 570-I), and the Government's response thereto (Session 1998–99, HC 831); the Fifth Report of Session 1998–99 on the Freedom of Information draft Bill: The Committee's Response to the Home Office Reply (HC 925); the First Report of Session 1999–2000 on the Freedom of Information Bill (HC 78).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Calls for a freedom of information Act have been made consistently over much of the past 20 years. Unnecessary secrecy in Government and our public services has long been held to undermine good governance and public administration, and my party has long been committed to change. At the last election, our manifesto stated:
  "We are pledged to a Freedom of Information Act, leading to more open government."
  The Bill will make that promise a reality.
  The Bill, by its first clause, lays down for the first time in our constitutional history that the public have a right to know about the work of Government and all other public authorities. Again for the first time, that right of access to information will be enforced by an independent Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal with clear powers to override the decisions of Ministers or any other public authority as to whether information should be released.
  Moreover, the Bill will not only provide legal rights for the public and place legal duties on Ministers and public authorities, but will help to transform the culture of Government from one of secrecy to one of openness. It will transform the default setting from "this should be kept quiet unless" to "this should be published unless". By doing so, it should raise public confidence in the processes of government, and enhance the quality of decision making by the Government.
  The process of developing the Bill—
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way so early in his speech.
  The culture could be changed even now. We have had this Government for two years; have the Home Secretary and his colleagues already sought, by exhortation or memorandums, to elicit such a commitment within the Government?
  Mr. Straw: I am pleased to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have gone one step further than exhortation and memorandums. I have gone beyond the word to the deed. As I have made clear in evidence to Select Committees on two occasions, my approach as

  715
  Home Secretary has been far more open than those of any of my predecessors. For example, I have placed on the public record all sorts of internal operational documents—not only factual backgrounds and analyses—including all the manuals relating to the operation of the immigration and nationality directorate, save for those that cannot safely be published for reasons of law enforcement or security.
  I have ensured that all research documents are published on time. As for statistics—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question and I want to answer it. I have placed the issue of statistics in the Home Department at arm's length from Ministers, contrary to the way in which Conservative Ministers used to manipulate the date when statistics were to be published. I have ensured that dates are set well in advance of publication. We have brought in the Royal Statistical Society to advise us.

  As for the inspectorate of Her Majesty's prisons, when I came to office, lying on my desk were more than a dozen reports of the chief inspector of prisons, some of which had been there for more than 12 months. They were still awaiting a decision on publication. I have established a protocol on publication so that they have to be published swiftly. If there is argument between the Director General of the Prison Service and the chief inspector, there is a procedure for resolving that. I am glad to have had the opportunity to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to both of my hon. Friends and then I shall make some progress.
  Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend continue with his good example and exhort his fellow Ministers in other Departments also to impart information? I have been trying for more than a month to get some information from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the sale of tickets for the millennium experience. I have not yet been able to discover why it is so difficult to obtain the information.
  Mr. Straw: The proposed legislation goes beyond exhortation to impose legal duties on Ministers. I shall, of course, take up the point that my hon. Friend raises.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was astonished to hear what my right hon. Friend said earlier. Is he saying that the former Home Office Minister, who is now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), left for him to pick up 12 reports on prisons which were gathering dust, on which she had taken no decision while she was a Minister? She now has the cheek to come before the House and argue with my right hon. Friend on freedom of information issues.
  Mr. Straw: I say that with one caveat. I do not know—I have no access to the advice given to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald
  716
  (Miss Widdecombe) and her former boss and friend, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—whether the reports were resting on the right hon. Lady's desk or on the desk of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, my predecessor. I can only tell my hon. Friend that some of those documents had been outstanding for more than 12 months.
  We need to judge people and we need to judge the extraordinary reasoned amendment, with which I shall deal in a moment. We must judge the Conservative party not by its vacuous words now but by its deeds when in government. We know that Conservative Ministers were practising a culture of secrecy even on issues that plainly should have been in the public domain.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I have given way on three occasions and I would like to make some progress. Then, as I always do, I shall give way again.
  The process of developing the Bill has been open. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who I see in his place and to whom I pay tribute, produced a White Paper in December 1997. There was an inquiry into that White Paper by the Select Committee on Public Administration, and a public consultation exercise. The Government responded to the Select Committee's report and to the consultation, and produced a draft Bill in May this year.
  We then had further public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny on the draft Bill, again by the Public Administration Committee and by a Committee in another place. The Government responded to the reports of those Committees and amended the draft Bill in significant ways, as I shall set out later. A series of background papers to the Cabinet Committee's discussions has also been published.
  As my hon. Friends know, I am always happy to engage in argument as to whether the Bill goes far enough, and I look forward to doing so this afternoon.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: On that point—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way when I have made some more progress.
  The last people to make that criticism are the Opposition—hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who, for 18 years, set their face against any legally enforceable right to know.
  When she was Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher said:
  "A Freedom of Information Act is inappropriate and unnecessary."
  Lest anyone believes that that policy was jettisoned with her premiership, the Conservative party stated in 1997, at the time of the general election, in its campaign guide:
  "The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies."

  717
  Incredibly, the Opposition are now posing as the defenders of open government. [Interruption.] Their amendment today is nothing short of Kafkaesque. If this goes on, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will soon be coming to the House to criticise the Government for failing to nationalise the banks and Britain's top 100 monopolies, and claiming that that was Tory policy all the time.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  I tell Opposition Members that it is one thing sensibly to modify policies in the light of an election defeat. [Interruption.] It is quite another thing to do a complete volte-face, without explanation or apology. The public tend to notice and are not impressed—[Interruption.].
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want calling out from a sedentary position from either side of the House during the Home Secretary's speech.
  Mr. Straw: I am not surprised that the Opposition do not like what I say. Their position on freedom of information is laughable and incredible. Their claim that the Bill
  "will result in greater secrecy than is the case under the existing"—
  non-statutory—
  "Code of Practice"
  is demonstrably untrue. That code was legally unenforceable. In contrast, the Bill is replete with legal powers of enforcement. The harm test under the code, which prevented disclosure, was much easier to pass than ours in the Bill will be. The Opposition's test was merely a test of the possibility of harm; ours is a test of the probability of harm.
  I may be conceding too much to the Opposition in claiming that they have changed their policy. They had changed their policy when they drafted their reasoned amendment yesterday, but today I received two documents. One is from the Widdyweb, the internet website run by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, which states today:
  "The shadow Home Secretary added that her party was content largely to see the status quo remain."
  The other document was from the Conservative research department's daily bulletin for today. Under the heading
  "Lines to take—Freedom of Information Bill",
  we read:
  "We"—
  the Conservative party—
  "believe it is for Parliament and for Ministers, not for judges or political appointees, to determine what information would be inappropriate in the public domain."
  There we have it—not a new policy, but the old policy, a defence of the circumstances under which the Conservatives operated before, which led to them covering up document after document. I hope that, when the right hon. Lady makes her speech, she will explain
  718
  which of the policies that she has enunciated in the past two days applies. Is she saying that we do not go far enough or that we go too far?
  Mr. Bercow: Speaking as a right-wing inquisitive busybody, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House, in the light of his veritable self-congratulation, why the director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, Mr. Maurice Frankel, says that, in key areas, the Bill is weaker than the openness code introduced by the Conservatives?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask Mr. Frankel that. I have discussed the matter with him, but he is demonstrably wrong about that. As I have already explained, the harm test operated in the code is a test only of the possibility of harm; the harm test to be operated under the Bill is the much higher test of the probability of harm.
  Mr. Wardle: The Home Secretary knows that I have twice voiced concern in the House about freedom of information and the Security Service. When was he first told that Oleg Gordievsky confirmed Security Service suspicions that a prominent trade unionist had betrayed this country and NATO to the KGB for years, and why has he not made a statement to the House?
  Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I cannot answer that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman gives me notice, I will give him an answer.
  Mr. Hancock: I am sure that the Home Secretary agrees that there is widespread concern in the country about the way in which animal experimentation is cloaked in secrecy. What has he done in his Department to free up information about licences and experimentation, and what will the Bill achieve in bringing about greater openness in that area?
  Mr. Straw: We are considering changes. The question of animal experimentation is central to the kind of freedom of information regime that should be constructed, where we have to balance the various interests of the right to know with the right of people lawfully to pursue their business, a right which all of us have to respect, and the need to ensure that, where it is necessary—only where it is necessary—for potential pharmaceutical products to be tested on animals in order to determine their safety, those experiments take place safely and securely. In addition, those who lawfully go about the business of testing pharmaceutical products, or those who are academics in that area, also have a right to their own personal safety, which right has often been put at grave risk.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend and I think that he needs to brace himself, both today and in Committee, for a litany of examples from hon. Members who have sought to probe the Government, but without success. Would I be helped under the Bill, as distinct from the ministerial code of practice, in my question to the Prime Minister about the frequency of Cabinet meetings since the general election and the duration of each, which he declined or was unable to answer? Would I be given that

  719
  information under the Bill or would it still be deemed to cause substantial harm—or would there be some other excuse?
  Mr. Straw: It will not be deemed to cause substantial harm. This is a matter of speculation and these decisions lie primarily in the hands of the Information Commissioner. The first issue would be whether such information came within clause 33, which relates to the formulation of Government policy and so on. If it was found by the commissioner to be exempt, the issue would be whether, under clause 13, the commissioner would recommend to Ministers that they disclose that information, and, if they did, whether the commissioner would particularly apply himself or herself to clause 13(5), which states:
  "In making any decision under"
  this clause regard should be had
  "to the desirability of communicating to the applicant factual information which has been used, or is intended to be used, to provide an informed background to decision-taking."
  Therefore, my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: No.
  Mr. Straw: No—it is not "no" at all. The answer is that my hon. Friend has a much better chance with the Bill than with the current code, and a much better chance than he would have had with the previous Government.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I shall make progress, and then I shall happily give way. I have already given way many times.
  Another major difference between the Government's approach and that of the Opposition is that the Bill forms a coherent part of our overall programme of constitutional reform, which is the most extensive such programme this century. Our programme includes devolution to Scotland, Wales and—now, happily—Northern Ireland; new standards of conduct for political parties; and—most importantly in the context of the Freedom of Information Bill—the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I said that I shall not give way for now.
  The 1998 Act sets out the European convention's statement of basic rights. Some of those rights are absolute—such as that provided in article 3, guaranteeing freedom from torture or degrading treatment. The rights with which we have had to wrestle in the Freedom of Information Bill are not absolutes, but have to be balanced one with another. Article 10 gives a right to freedom of expression, but that has to be set against article 8 on the right to respect for a private life.
  We have therefore sought in the Bill to secure a balance between the right to information needed for the proper exercise of the freedom of expression and the—directly conflicting—right of individuals to protection of
  720
  information about themselves; the rights that institutions, including commercial companies, should have to proper confidentiality; and the need for any organisation, including the Government, to be able to formulate its collective policies in private.
  Clause 1 states:
  "Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—

  (a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and

  (b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him."

  That right is overseen by the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal.
  I should like clearly to make this point, as there has been huge misunderstanding about the commissioner's powers. The commissioner and the tribunal have the last word on whether information is or is not exempt, and on whether any prejudice is caused sufficiently to justify non-disclosure. In the sphere of policy advice—dealt with in clause 34, and other than for central Government—the commissioner and the tribunal have the last word on whether the authorised person's opinion is reasonable.
  Only if the commissioner and the tribunal agree that information is exempt, and that the public authority is therefore under no duty whatever to publish, does the discretionary disclosure power and duty under clause 13 arise. In such a case—for reasons that I shall be happy to explain—the power of the commissioner and of the tribunal is limited to a recommendation, albeit a very powerful one.
  Mr. James Clappison: Will the Home Secretary explain why, in clause 33, central Government are exempting from the disclosure requirement information held by themselves, even when disclosure of that information would cause no prejudice to anyone? Why are the Government—to adopt the Home Secretary's own phrase—insisting on unnecessary secrecy?
  Mr. Straw: We are not insisting on unnecessary secrecy. It has been accepted by people on all sides of the argument, and in all sensible freedom of information regimes of which I am aware, that policy advice and information on policy formulation—the way in which Ministers communicate with their private office, for example—should be exempt. We have therefore said that it should be exempt.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and the Weald): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I am answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and then I shall give way to the right hon. Lady.
  We are therefore saying that such information should be exempt. However, the issue of whether information should come within that exemption will be for the commissioner. If a Minister were foolish enough to say that a piece of information that should not be classified should be so classified, the commissioner would be able to see the information and to make a decision. Moreover, even when the commissioner, backed by the tribunal, decides that the Minister is correct in asserting that the information is exempt, the Minister is still under a duty,

  721
  imposed in clause 13, to consider whether—using the balancing test, which tips the balance strongly in favour of factual information—to issue it.
  The commissioner will be able to make a recommendation in such cases, and my belief is that it would be very unusual—not impossible, but unusual—for such a recommendation to be overridden.
  Miss Widdecombe: No one will argue—no one has ever done so—that internal advice in the form of a judgment submitted by a civil servant to a Minister should be published. That would rapidly make government unworkable. However, judgments and recommendations are made on the basis of factual material, which is sometimes statistical, and sometimes constitutes other sorts of information. By gathering all the information under the class exemption, it is possible to resist publishing not only the advice but the information on which it is based.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the point, but if the right hon. Lady will bear with me, I shall deal with the question of whether it is possible to disentangle factual information and analysis from policy advice. We have not closed the door on attempting to find a sensible way of doing that.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan rose—
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan), and then to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Morgan: On the harm test, the Secretary of State will know that his opposite number in Scotland, who is not in the same party, plans to introduce a test of substantial prejudice rather than prejudice. How will that affect clause 26, which covers the relations between the Westminster Government and the devolved Administrations? The Scottish Executive are not a public authority under the Bill. Could there be circumstances in which the Westminster Administration refused to publish details of their relations with Scotland because they considered such publication prejudicial, whereas the Scottish Executive published them because they did not believe that publication would be substantially prejudicial?
  Mr. Straw: I doubt whether that will happen. The Scottish Executive document presents only proposals at this stage, and we await the small print, which is always important. While the commissioner has the power to order the publication of information when we can only make a recommendation, annexe C deals with the problem for Ministers in Scotland by providing for an Executive override—not once, not twice, but 15 times. We have not made such a provision. The whole document, not simply part of it, should be read.
  722
  On the hon. Gentleman's more substantial point about the transmission of information, it is settled that the copyright is in the hands of the originator, so the release of information that originated with us would be a matter for Westminster. The same would apply to Scotland.
  Mr. Campbell: Imagine a civil servant who gives information to a Minister on a subject as important as BSE or guns to Iraq. During the deliberations of the Select Committee on Public Administration, its members said that we should try to discover hidden secrets, of which there were many under the previous Government, and get hold of information before it could be covered up. BSE was covered up under the previous Government. Will the Bill prevent such information from being concealed at the stage when discussions take place between civil servants and Ministers?
  Mr. Straw: No freedom of information regime is a cure for bad government. America has the most extensive freedom of information regime, yet Government improprieties happen there more frequently than here. It is possible to make parts of a freedom of information regime self-defeating. We want to ensure that that does not happen here. In the United States, information is sometimes simply not recorded because people wish to avoid its exposure. Under those circumstances, the trail of accountability does not exist. When I was given bits of paper—they were hardly submissions—to sign late last year and early this year on what became known as Mitrokhin, I noted them, ticked them and recorded the date on which I had seen them. That is the way in which Ministers ensure that they are held to account. When I was asked when I had seen the information I could not immediately recall the exact date, although I recalled that I had seen it. The file was sent for and I was able to report—not to the House, because it was during the recess—within two days exactly what information I had seen. That is now being submitted in text to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
  If we go too far, as we have seen with other Administrations, those ticks would not be on the documents, because the Minister would not be willing to say whether he had seen the information. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) said that when he went to Australia he was told rather cynically by officials there that they had two devices for getting round what they thought was over-elaborate freedom of information legislation. One was to put documents on a trolley and wheel it into the Cabinet room. Those documents then became Cabinet documents and were exempt, as though they had been sprinkled with holy water. The second device was to make extensive use of post-it notes. That is a way of undermining the accountability of Ministers and I do not want it repeated here.
  I have given an extensive answer to my hon. Friend, but I should like to deal with arms to Iraq and BSE as well. I have thought carefully about the issues and I do not believe that an FOI regime—that which we propose or any other that I have seen—would have guaranteed that either situation would not have come about. It is possible that in the arms to Iraq affair, the challenge on whether information should have been withheld on what turned out to be spurious national security grounds—which had to take place when there was a challenge to a public

  723
  interest immunity certificate in court—might well have taken place earlier before the Information Commissioner. That might have ensured that some of the injustices that followed did not happen or were halted earlier.
  As for BSE, I draw to my hon. Friend's attention not just the provisions in the Bill, but the measures that the House has already passed under the Food Standards Act 1999. The Food Standards Agency has been given extensive powers on the disclosure of information, including aspects of policy advice.
  Mr. Gill: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) challenged us to produce evidence of information being withheld and talked about allegations of torture. Last week, I asked the Foreign Secretary which member countries of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, of which we are one, had failed to eradicate torture. The Minister who replied did not give me the answer that I was seeking. He would not say which countries had still not prohibited torture, but simply said that instances of abuse persisted in many parts of the region. I seek clarification from the Home Secretary. Does he believe that passing the Bill would alter that situation and would oblige the Foreign Secretary to tell me in which OSCE countries torture still persisted?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot arbitrate in the matter of the hon. Gentleman's specific example. If he feels aggrieved as a result of the answer that he has been given, he should be aware that he would have significant powers under the Bill—greater than he currently has. I imagine that the Foreign Secretary would justify his refusal to make such a disclosure under clause 25, on the grounds that it would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any other state. The hon. Gentleman would then be able to challenge whether the information came within the exemption. Even if it did, he would be able to rely on clause 13, possibly backed by a recommendation in favour of disclosure by the commissioner, to require the Secretary of State to look again at the refusal to disclose the information. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.
  Mr. Giles Radice: Many Labour Members have been in favour of freedom of information legislation all our parliamentary lives, so we very much welcome the Bill—particularly in its strengthened form. As I understand it, the Information Commissioner has the right to recommend publication in almost all cases. However, in certain cases, the Minister is able to resist that recommendation.
  Miss Widdecombe: In all cases.
  Mr. Radice: Well, I would like it explained why that should be so.
  In addition, we can all understand the case for keeping policy advice confidential. Is it not possible to separate policy advice from the information behind that policy advice?
  Mr. Straw: On my right hon. Friend's second point, we have not yet found a formula which safely does as he asks, although I am happy to continue the search for one.
  The question of the powers of the commissioner has been the subject of some misunderstanding. Clause 1 lays down the right to know for citizens. Part II sets out
  724
  circumstances in which information can be exempt from that right to know. In some cases, information is exempt as a class—the best example of that is national security. In many other cases, it is exempt where it is subject to a harm test. Generally, this is a test of prejudice, but in some cases—for example, in respect of health and safety—it is a matter of whether the release of that information would seriously endanger the health and safety of an individual.
  In one case where policy advice is concerned, that, too, is exempt as a class. Under clause 34, the exemption is subject to certification by a qualified person. In each of those cases—as set out in clauses 50 to 55 and the schedules—the commissioner has not just a power to recommend, but a power to enforce the decision which he or she makes to require the publication of information.
  So far as those areas covered by a class exemption are concerned—including clauses 33 and 34—if the commissioner says that he or she does not accept that the information comes within that class—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] But the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has just accepted the need for a class exemption for policy advice and for national security. If she is saying that that is not needed, I look forward to hearing from her. That has always been the position that she has adopted in the past.
  So far as a class exemption is concerned, it is for the commissioner to say whether or not the information comes properly within that class of information. So far as those areas covered by part II are concerned, and where there is harm test, the commissioner can substitute his or her judgment on whether harm will be caused for the judgment of the Minister. The commissioner's decision is final, subject only to appeal to the tribunal. There are extensive powers of enforcement and offences created for failing to comply with the orders of the commissioner.
  It is only where the tribunal and the commissioner have themselves said that the Minister is not under a duty to release the information that the issue of discretion arises. However, even though the Minister or public authority is not under a duty to release the information, the Minister is under a duty to consider releasing information, and the commissioner can make a recommendation to that effect.
  One of the issues that has been raised is whether the commissioner should have the final decision, even in respect of himself or herself. We can discuss that more in Committee. Scotland has said that the commissioner has the final decision, but has then said that the Executive can override that decision. I would suggest to the House that that is a distinction without a difference.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Since I have been on my feet for 34 minutes and I know that many other Members wish to speak, I will, if I may, make some progress. I will then happily give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  I want to deal with some of the areas where we have moved away from the White Paper. The White Paper proposed a test of substantial harm but the Bill uses a test of prejudice. The consultation exercise is instructive here. In the end, of course, we have to weigh the quality of an argument, not the quantity of the responses to it, but, as it happens, of those who commented on the substantial harm test, the majority raised objections.

  725
  There may be some who say that the views of, for example, the Confederation of British Industry, can simply be brushed aside; but we do not. We do not always agree with it, but it set out an argument against the substantial harm test clearly and cogently. It said:
  "We believe the test for disclosing information should be one of simple harm and not substantial harm … Any attempt to limit the ability to withhold information to that which may cause substantial harm to a business may prevent the voluntary disclosure of information to Government. Without proper assurances, we do not consider that the Government's approach will achieve the objective of two-way openness and trust."
  Similar arguments against the use of a relatively ill-defined adjective such as "substantial" can be made in respect of many other areas, not least law enforcement, so we moved away from the substantial harm test, but in other important ways the Bill is more open than the White Paper.
  We have introduced the tribunal, so that an applicant has a quick and cheap way of appealing against the commissioner's decision. We have extended the coverage of the Bill beyond that proposed in the White Paper, to include the operational activities of the police and Parliament itself. Overall, although the package proposed in the White Paper has been changed, there are many instances in which the balance has moved towards a greater openness rather than in the other direction. That is well illustrated by the nine-page grid annexed to the latest report of the Public Administration Committee.
  The proposals for Scotland are at an early stage and we look forward to the detail. It is of the essence of devolution that institutions do things differently. I am pleased to say that I enjoy constructive relations with Members of the Scottish Parliament and members of the Scottish Executive, both Labour and Liberal Democrat, and long may that continue, but, in the end, the separate institutions may come to different views, and we should not shy away from that. We should celebrate the fact that, in this United Kingdom, a Union of diverse nations, we can none the less accommodate such differences.
  The Bill has been compared with the Irish Freedom of Information Act. Again, it is a matter for each state to determine for itself what legislation to enact, and Ireland has reached a view different from ours. The commissioner in Ireland can order disclosure in the public interest, although in key areas—as is proposed in Scotland—that is subject to ministerial override. In many areas, the Irish legislation is less open than the Bill. There is no access to information created before the Irish legislation came into force, whereas the Bill is fully retrospective, and the legislation in Ireland does not cover the police service at all.
  The Bill will lead to cultural change throughout the public sector. There will be more information about how health authorities, local councils and the police deliver services. It will give citizens a right to know and a right to appeal to the commissioner if they do not get the information that they have sought. That is a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizens and the state.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: No doubt inadvertently, the Home Secretary mis-stated the law and what happened in relation to public interest immunity certificates in the
  726
  arms to Iraq matter. The issuing of the certificates was not misdone, as Sir Richard Scott subsequently informed the House on 6 May 1996. The tests for PII, introduced after consultation on 18 December 1996, were tests of real harm or serious harm. The test of prejudice is a much weaker test.
  Mr. Straw: I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point, because we are dealing with two very different sets of circumstances. He has had experience of advising on the signing of PIIs and I have had considerable experience of having to authorise or, in some cases, not authorise them. The issue is whether information that is relevant to an individual's defence should be disclosed to that individual and to the court.
  In this case, we are talking of differing circumstances. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to deal with the test that we have established for law enforcement generally—not in relation to PIIs—my view, and that of the police service, was that we could get into dangerous circumstances if we released information that it was accepted would cause harm to law enforcement but that had to be released because it could not be shown that it would cause substantial harm. We have to make fine judgments about what would be fully in the public interest. Would it be the release of that information, even though we knew it would cause harm to the public, or would it be the withholding of that information, because it would cause harm to the public? My judgment is that it is better, in those circumstances, to withhold the information.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Irish freedom of information legislation. He will be aware that, under arrangements made by both Governments, we now have cross-border bodies. Is he in a position to say what information will be available to members of the public in the United Kingdom about those cross-border bodies and their activities, and what further information may be available in the Republic of Ireland?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot say exactly, but I will see whether the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwick-Sline (Mr. O'Brien) is able to provide that information when he winds up. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier—that when one is dealing with two separate governmental institutions, the basic rule that applies is that the originating institution has ownership of that information.
  The Public Administration Committee, in its latest report, made a number of proposals for changes to the draft Bill. In the Government's response, published on 19 October, we met some, although not all, of their proposals. The power of the commissioner has been expanded; the public interest test in clause 13 has been widened; the time limit for meeting applications for information has been cut by more than a third, from 40 calendar days to 20 working days; and the so-called cumulative harm test in clause 37 of the draft Bill has been removed, as has clause 44(7), against self-incrimination.
  One area where so far it has not been possible to find accommodation for the Select Committee's views is in

  727
  identifying a robust formula that can safely distinguish between policy advice and what the Select Committee called
  "purely factual information … and analysis"
  used to inform policy decisions. I continue to wish to discuss that issue with right hon. and hon. Members. However, for reasons that I will now explain to the House, the difference between us and the Select Committee will in practice be much less than is imagined.
  The assumption behind the recommendation of the Select Committee is that there is much purely factual information and analysis that informs policy decisions which is not published at all, or is published only by grace and favour of Ministers. In my experience, that is not correct. Let me illustrate that by taking two key areas of policy for which I am responsible—criminal justice, and asylum and immigration. The policy submissions I receive on both those areas do indeed contain much factual information, but almost all of it is already published; or if the data are provisional, it is about to be published. There is no separate set of statistics on police activity, criminal prosecutions and convictions or asylum applications to which I have access but Parliament and public do not. What is also frequently overlooked in this debate is that, by a separate White Paper, the Government will take additional steps to strengthen the independence of the Office for National Statistics and the integrity of its data.
  Dr. Tony Wright: For the avoidance of doubt on an issue that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier, will he confirm that, when the issue of the disclosure of exempt information on public interest grounds arises, that decision will finally be taken not by an independent Information Commissioner but by a Minister or a public body? What sort of circumstances might arise in which an Information Commissioner might recommend disclosure but a Minister or a public body would still withhold the information?
  Mr. Straw: In terms of the Bill, what my hon. Friend says is correct; but, as I have explained, the discretionary power comes into play only after the Minister has been told by the commissioner that he or she has no duty to release information. If the Minister has such a duty and the commissioner orders the release of information, that is the end of the matter: the information must be released.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I want to finish my speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) asked whether I could anticipate circumstances in which, after the commissioner had been advised under clause 13 that the information should be disclosed, the Minister refused to disclose it. I cannot immediately offer my hon. Friend an example, but there might be circumstances in which Ministers genuinely thought that the release of such information could be highly prejudicial to negotiations with another state, to negotiations within the United Kingdom, or to national security.
  I feel that there would be few occasions on which a Minister would, or should, refuse to accept the recommendation of the commissioner, just as I believe
  728
  that there have been few occasions on which a Minister has refused to accept the recommendation of the ombudsman. None the less, I think it important to have a fail-safe mechanism. As my hon. Friend knows, many countries operate such a mechanism by way of Executive override, and that is what is proposed in Scotland. We are approaching the issue by what I consider to be a more straightforward route, but I expect the conclusion to be exactly the same.
  This is a good Bill, which will transform the culture in which Governments operate. In particular, it will end the culture of secrecy in which the last Administration operated. For the first time, the people will have a right to know. The Bill compares well with legislation overseas. Each country must determine for itself where to set the balance between competing rights, such as the right to know, the right to privacy and the right to confidentiality. The balance of rights will be different everywhere.
  The Bill is fully retrospective, unlike legislation in Ireland. It covers a wide range of organisations, including the police—again, not the case in Ireland—and provides access to a tribunal, unlike the proposals in the Scottish consultation paper. The Bill provides free access to the commissioner, whereas in Australia access to the administration tribunal requires payment of a fee. It also imposes strict limits on response times, unlike legislation in Canada, where many people have to wait for months to receive information.
  The right to know, while it cannot be an unfettered right, has long been neglected in this country. The Opposition did nothing to promote a statutory right to know in 18 years of government; indeed, until now, they have consistently opposed such a move. Everyone will benefit from the Bill, which will help to deliver a more responsive, better informed and more accountable public service, and I commend it to the House.
  5.23 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Freedom of Information Bill because it will result in greater secrecy than is the case under the existing Code of Practice, because it fails to promote open government instead of secrecy or transfer from Ministers and officials to Parliament the final decision over the release of information, and because it represents a significant dilution of the proposals in the White Paper, Your Right to Know (Cm 3818), and disregards the recommendations from the Select Committee on Public Administration."
  If the Home Secretary is half as serious as he suggested about bringing greater openness to government, the Bill represents a missed opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman made tremendous virtue of the fact that he was putting openness on to a statutory footing, but all that he is putting on to a statutory footing is more secrecy than was contained in the code of practice. That is a backward step, rather than a step forward. A careful examination of what the House is really being asked to consider—behind all the smoke and mirrors—will show that the Bill takes us not forward, but back.
  It is true that I have said that I would prefer the status quo to this Bill, which I believe will ultimately provide for less than is provided for by the status quo. I have said that, and I stand by it.

  729
  I have also said that Parliament has a vital role in holding the Executive to account. That role is completely ignored by the Bill. Had the Bill lived up to half the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government, we might have moved into a new era of openness. The Government claim commitments to open government and to freedom of information. At the general election, the Labour manifesto claimed:
  "Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in government and defective policy decisions."
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I have hardly said the parliamentary equivalent of "Good afternoon", and I should like to make some progress.
  As with so many Labour pledges, the Government's enthusiasm for what they said in Opposition has quickly waned. The manner in which they have treated Parliament and the public stands in stark contrast to the culture of openness that the Conservative Governments attempted to create. [Interruption.] On Sierra Leone—those words make the Labour Benches go quiet—the Foreign Secretary tried to refuse the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs access to relevant papers. On tax harmonisation, we had to wait until The Daily Telegraph published details of secret talks in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been engaged and which could give Brussels control of nearly 200 new taxes. It took another press revelation to tell us that the Prime Minister had intended to foist a coalition on us.
  The Home Secretary himself is not whiter than white when it comes to openness in government. It took a leak of a Treasury letter—
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish what I am saying before I give way.
  It took a leaked Treasury letter before the Home Secretary would admit the truth about police numbers. As he is so keen to interrupt, I shall now give way. Come on; the right hon. Gentleman has the Floor.
  Mr. Straw: As well as giving us her fantasy, will the right hon. Lady tell us about her record? How was it that I was presented with a great pile of reports from the prisons inspectorate that had lain either on her desk or on that of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for up to 12 months? Was that consistent with openness?
  Miss Widdecombe: I was giving the House not a fantasy but a litany of the misdeeds of a Government who claim that they are committed to openness. It will not have escaped the House that, as ever, the Home Secretary spent the first half of his speech not presenting his proposals,
  730
  but going back endlessly over our term in government. Presumably, he is practising for Opposition again. He must be looking forward to it.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am going to continue.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. Lady is not giving way.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary does not seem to realise that he is in government, and that he must answer for what is being done by the Bill.
  We published the code of practice on access to Government information in 1994, and strengthened it in 1997. What the Home Secretary has said today and what is provided for by his class exemption on the formulation of Government policy may therefore be contrasted with what we provided for and that was: to publish the facts and the analysis of the facts that the Government considered relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions; and that such information would normally be made available when policies and decisions were announced.
  That was a clear attempt to make the distinction that the right hon. Gentleman suggested this afternoon could not readily be made, between an internal judgment or recommendation and the information from which that judgment or recommendation was drawn.
  I put it to the right hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will consider this seriously during the passage of the Bill—that if we could do it in our "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", he too can do it during the passage of the Bill.
  Dr. Gibson: In what year was the public information disclosure Bill enacted? It prevented workers from being dismissed and allowed them to be safeguarded against problems arising from their blowing the whistle on companies after two good trade unionists—one in a Leeds general hospital and one in British Biotech—lost their positions because they raised issues of fraud and misconduct and the health hazards to the public caused by the misrepresentation of cancer drug trials in one case and the falsification of information in a hospital in the other. In what year was that Bill enacted?
  Miss Widdecombe: I might have been more convinced by that Bill's usefulness had not my time as shadow Secretary of State for Health revealed that the Government were most unwilling to confront information when it was unhelpful to their cause. Indeed, I listed many such instances.
  The Home Secretary may not understand this, but I am trying to deal with some of the detail of the Bill because it is seriously flawed. I am trying to draw out the flaws

  731
  and to test whether the right hon. Gentleman is receptive to the Bill being amended. I may be wrong, but I thought that that was what scrutiny by Parliament was all about.
  Mr. A.J. Beith: The right hon. Lady has suggested that the Bill ought to be amended in certain respects, and I agree. However, she is asking the House to accept an amendment that declines to give the Bill a Second Reading and that would prevent the House from reaching those parts and amending them. Is that her serious intention, or is it a device to enable those Tories who think that freedom of information is for left-wing busybodies to vote in the same Lobby as those who think that it is a good idea but that the Bill is defective in some respects?
  Miss Widdecombe: We are used to a rather higher standard of intervention than that from the right hon. Gentleman. The position is extremely simple. We believe that the Bill is deeply flawed and that the Home Secretary has shown no willingness, during his analysis of it and in answering our questions, to ensure that it does not take us backwards in ways that I am endeavouring to illustrate. If he were prepared to give that undertaking, there might be some way forward. Until he is prepared to admit that, no, we do not want to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Helen Jones rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I will give way in a moment. I want to move on to my next argument to show that the Bill is flawed.
  The document to which I referred—our code of practice—set a challenging target for the amount of information that should be released by Government and public authorities. It made it clear that the approach of public authorities should be to release information
  "in all cases … based on the assumption that information should be released except where disclosure would not be"—
  not "could not" or "might possibly be", as the right hon. Gentleman claimed—
  "in the public interest."
  Dr. George Turner: The right hon. Lady is saying that the information would be doing some harm. Will she illustrate using her own example what harm would have been done if the reports on the Prison Service that she did not publish had been published so that we all knew about the decisions that she was not taking as well as those that she was?
  Miss Widdecombe: Let us hear about Wormwood Scrubs, shall we? The hon. Gentleman should know that I published scores of Prison Service reports, and that we then had in place a procedure that involved trying to get agreement on the facts—as opposed to the interpretation of the facts—between the chief inspector, the Director General of the Prison Service and Ministers. I am the first to acknowledge, and I acknowledged while in office, as the Home Secretary will find if he checks the record, that that sometimes led to cumbersome delays. I do not disapprove of the fact that there is now a different system. However, the idea that Prison Service reports were withheld because of some potential harm is absolute twaddle.
  732
  Perhaps we could now return to the detail of the Bill. For some reason, Labour Members are unwilling to buckle down and look at it. I sometimes wonder why Labour Members try to delay progress by going into extraneous highways and byways, when we are discussing things that apparently so exercised Labour Members that 195 of them signed a motion calling for amendments to the Bill, many of which have not been made.
  Dr. Tony Wright: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman probably wants to make a point relating to earlier interventions. If his intervention is on the point that I am making, I will listen; but if it is on some extraneous matter, I will not.
  Dr. Wright: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will listen and tell me whether my intervention is appropriate. I am trying to work out what she is inviting the House to do. The Bill has already been substantially improved through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's constructive engagement. He says that he wants to improve it further by engaging in further discussion on it, yet the right hon. Lady is inviting the House to reject it on Second Reading so that it cannot be improved. Is that not simply daft?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is ever the optimist. I shall seek to demonstrate that, in most of its essentials, the Bill has not been improved. I do not believe that it will be. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Lady has not done her homework."] The unfortunate thing for Government Members is that I have done my homework. That is why I am trying to give the Bill a close analysis.
  Helen Jones rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I will give way because I told the hon. Lady that I would, but this is the last intervention that I shall take until I have covered the next point.
  Helen Jones: The right hon. Lady argues that the Bill has not been improved. I put it to her that, in the Select Committee report, which details the process of pre-legislative scrutiny, she will find a number of recommendations that were accepted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and are now included in the Bill. Is the right hon. Lady seriously arguing that we should not continue that process and continue to improve the Bill?
  Miss Widdecombe: I intend to argue that many of the most salient recommendations have not been incorporated. I shall now make progress in arguing that.
  I have never claimed that the code of practice that we introduced was perfect, that it could not be expanded, that it could not be built on and that it did not have some flaws of its own. I do claim that what is now being written into statute represents a deterioration from the position that was set out in the code. For example, many bodies are exempt from the provisions of the code simply because they do not come under the remit of the parliamentary ombudsman. It is not possible for the ombudsman, who enforces the code, to compel the release of information, but the code remains a clear statement in favour of

  733
  freedom of information, unlike the Bill, which I hope now to demonstrate represents backwards movement.
  The Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) have made much of the consultation process that the Home Secretary undertook in formulating his Bill, but he has spent much of his time since the publication of his White Paper "Your Right to Know" backtracking from the original proposals. For example, he has included many more class exemptions such as the exemption of all information relating to policy formulation. That is a backwards step from his White Paper and from our code of practice. It will have the effect of making secret more information.
  The Home Secretary has changed the test on whether information should be released from substantial prejudice, which would have been tough to meet, to simple prejudice, which is easy to meet. That will mean that it is harder for information to qualify for release. He has backtracked from the pledge in the Government's White Paper to give the Information Commissioner the power to force public authorities to release information. His constant retreat from proposals that would encourage real openness is indicative of the weakness of the Government's commitment to the cause that they theoretically espouse.
  We know the reason for the Government's sudden and dramatic change of heart. The enthusiasm for openness and proper freedom of information waned at about the same time that responsibility for the Bill was transferred from the Cabinet Office, where it was under the auspices of the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to the Home Office.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does she feel that the provisions of the Bill will hinder or assist the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who did a good job in preparing the Bill in the first place, in finding out who at No. 10 Downing street systematically rubbished him in the press in order to create vacancies for Liberal Democrats in a coalition with the Prime Minister?
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not want to intrude on private grief.
  It is clear that the Home Secretary does not share the enthusiastic feelings of many members of his party on this issue. It is surprising that he does not even agree with the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who was previously responsible for the Bill. That became clear during the debate on the Address, when the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he was not happy with the stance of the Home Secretary. He said:
  "we still have to persuade him further. We are not there yet."—[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 40.]
  The initial stages of the consultation process were characterised by the Government moving in the opposite direction from the views that they were receiving from interested parties. Indeed, they completely ignored many of the salient recommendations in the Select Committee on Public Administration's report on the draft Bill.
  734
  The Home Secretary made some minor proposals in respect of the Committee's findings but, in response, the Select Committee noted
  "with some disappointment"
  that
  "most of the points we found unsatisfactory in our report of a few weeks ago remain part of the Bill."
  The Committee expressed concern that there was no clear presumption in favour of disclosure; that the Information Commissioner could not order release of information on the grounds of public interest; and that there were still too many class exemptions in the Bill. We share many of those concerns and will raise them in Committee.
  It was significant that the main feature of the Home Secretary's consultation process was his unwillingness to include the views of others. The Law Society said:
  "Instead of a presumption in favour of disclosure of information we seem to have one which favours secrecy."
  Charter 88 said:
  "the legislation remains seriously flawed despite the concessions offered in October".
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I think she said that the commissioner does not have the power to issue disclosure. However, does she accept that, in respect of part II, the commissioner has clear powers to order disclosure and to enforce such an order?
  Miss Widdecombe: Only if the matter is not covered by an exemption. The commissioner has no power on the public interest, which will be one of the principal tests.
  I was telling the House what other people have said. The National Union of Journalists said that it
  "is deeply concerned at the failings in the Bill. After waiting decades for Labour to make good its promise of freedom of information we find a proposal which in some ways is a backward step".
  There are several key points on which we shall try to improve the Government's flawed proposals. The Bill introduces many more class exemptions than are found in the code of practice. That is an undisputable fact. We shall seek to remove from the Bill two significant class exemptions that are not found in the code of practice.
  Possibly the most contentious of the new class exemptions contained in the Bill is the one that I have mentioned, which relates to the formulation of Government policy. As I have said already, and would always say, we agree that internal civil service policy documents, which are advice from civil servants to Ministers, should not be released. I accept that utterly; but it must be right that the background data that have informed policy making should be released in some, if not in most, cases. We began that process when in government—we did not complete it, but we began it—and we shall work to ensure that the Government do not try to row back from that now.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: On that very point, which the right hon. Lady has now covered twice, she will be aware of the evidence given by Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former Cabinet Secretary, to the House of Lords Select Committee appointed to consider the draft Bill, in which he said, at page 58 of that Committee's report:

  735
  "when we were coming up to the 1997 election, knowing what the government policy was in this matter, my senior colleagues and I gave some thought to how we could regularly structure submissions to Ministers in a way that would enable us easily to separate the background which was publishable from, as it were, the subjective advice which was confidential. It would take a bit of training and"—
  these are important words—
  "changing practice to do that, but I think that people could very readily adapt to that."
  Can the right hon. Lady explain what was happening in her Government, that that change had to take place in anticipation of our Government?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me, because he has made a clear case that it is possible to separate the advice from the information on which it is based, and that is what we accepted in part 1, section 3(i) of our 1997 "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" when we said that we should
  "publish the facts and analysis of the facts which"
  were
  "relevant and important in framing major policy proposals and decisions".
  [Interruption.] I am going to make this analysis because it is a crucial one. It is possible—the former Cabinet Secretary says that it is possible—to distinguish between advice and information, so why does the Home Secretary have one omnium-gatherum class exemption to cover all of it?
  Helen Jackson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I give way for the last time.
  Helen Jackson: My logic may be flawed but it seems to me that, not longer than five minutes ago, the right hon. Lady said that she admitted to the House that she preferred the status quo. The intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) has just drawn from her a totally different interpretation—that she was perhaps trying to change the status quo.
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not know whether it is the hon. Lady's logic that is flawed as much as her understanding.
  Helen Jackson rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I will not give way. I shall say this once more, and only once more. Our code of practice, which I have quoted so often that I cannot read out all the words again, clearly stated that not just the opinions and the submissions, but the facts and analysis of the facts that the Government consider relevant and important are to be published.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I very clearly said that that was the last intervention for some time.
  736
  In his evidence, the former Cabinet Secretary made it clear that it was possible to distinguish between advice and information, but the Home Secretary's class exemption does not distinguish between the two. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) seems unable to follow that elementary reasoning.
  Mr. Williams rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall now make progress.
  We shall also oppose any class exemption on information relating to the investigation of accidents. Obviously, we would not countenance the release of documents that would prejudice criminal proceedings, but we do believe that the public should have access to some documents relating to incidents, such as—it is only an example—the recent tragedy at Paddington. In relation to certain types of information, there is an absolute need for a class exemption.
  For example, we accept—there is no argument between us about this—that the Home Secretary is right to say that information received in confidence from a foreign Government should not be subject to the provisions of the Bill. However, the increased number of exemptions in the Bill will undeniably make more information secret than was the case under the code of practice. Therefore, we shall examine every class exemption that the Government propose to introduce and we shall evaluate whether the exemption rows back from the code of practice or, indeed, from the Home Secretary's own White Paper.
  Another fundamental flaw in the Bill is the inherent weakness of the Information Commissioner, who will be set up by the Government supposedly to enforce freedom of information. Under their proposals, the Information Commissioner will not be able to compel disclosure of information where he deems release to be in the public interest. That is the difference between what we advance, which is that the Information Commissioner should be limited by what is in the public interest, and what the Home Secretary advances, which relates simply to what is not covered by an exemption. They are two completely different cases.
  If a member of the public appeals to the commissioner after being denied information, the commissioner cannot order disclosure and nor can the tribunal, which is the appellate body, and nor can the courts, which can address only points of law and not the substance of whether the public interest is being served. Therefore, it is clear that Ministers will continue to decide whether information should be released or not.
  Mr. Bercow: Is it not a source of disturbance to Conservative Members that the Bill offers no prospect in future of better ministerial performance at Question Time than we have witnessed in the past when, as my right hon. Friend will agree, obfuscation has been the norm and disclosure has been the exception? Will she cast her mind back 27 hours and tell me whether she thinks that, under the Bill, I am likely to get a better answer to the question that I posed to the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), about the effect on job opportunities of the manufacture by prisoners of 260,000 pairs of slippers between March 1997 and March 2000?
  Miss Widdecombe: You might, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rebuke me if I endeavoured to rehearse yesterday's

  737
  Question Time, and I see nods from the people at whom I am not supposed to look. Therefore, I will not be tempted down that route. However, it would be high optimism to the point of folly to assume that any Freedom of Information Bill would improve ministerial answers at Question Time. Perhaps, now—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say again that I do not want to hear exchanges across the Floor when the House should be paying attention to an hon. Member.
  Miss Widdecombe: I was saying that the final fundamental flaw in the Government's proposals is the side-lining of Parliament. The Bill contains no provision for ensuring that Parliament plays a role in ensuring openness. In decisions relating to the public interest, we believe that it is right for elected Members of Parliament to hold Ministers to account.
  There are many other more detailed problems with the Bill. For example, under its provisions, it is up to the Home Secretary to decide which public authorities are subject to the legislation, and it can be noted from the Bill that he will do so by order. That is in contrast to the Human Rights Act 1998, in which it is for the courts to decide whether a body should be subject to legislation.
  We shall also need to examine carefully the Government's proposals to merge the post of Information Commissioner with that of the existing Data Protection Registrar. I do not doubt in any way the excellent work done by Elizabeth France, the current Data Protection Registrar, to whom the House is very grateful. However, we shall need to consider carefully giving responsibility for ensuring openness to a post which at the moment ensures secrecy and privacy. We believe that they are two separate and distinct roles and that any attempt to confuse them could result in a less effective enforcement process.
  Mr. Brian White: If the right hon. Lady is suggesting, as she has done in press interviews, that going to the ombudsman is the better route, will she explain how the effectiveness of the ombudsman will interact with that of the Data Protection Registrar? The two posts are inextricably linked, as the evidence to the Select Committee showed.
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall come to our proposals for the ombudsman if the hon. Gentleman will exercise patience.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Before my right hon. Friend comes to that important point, may I suggest caution? She has suggested two classes in which she absolutely accepts the exemptions. The first is information given in confidence between Governments. This country is part of the European Union and therefore ruled by the agreement of Governments. Information that is commonplace within our own self-rule area will not be available under the provisions. That is an important point.
  The other exemptions that my right hon. Friend mentioned are those that relate to policy advice. She will recall that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer made available to the world advice on changes in interest rates—a practice continued by the present Government
  738
  and put in statute. That did not bring about the fall of British Governments, and many of us would argue that it improved the quality of judgment and reassured markets about the performance of the British economy. I suggest that my right hon. Friend takes account of that caution because the proposals in the Bill are draconian.
  Miss Widdecombe: I agree with my hon. Friend's final point that many of the proposals in the Bill can be called draconian. I undertake to consider his first point carefully. However, on his second point, there may be occasions when Ministers, with the agreement of permanent secretaries, want to release policy advice. I am not saying that they should never under any circumstances release such information, but that there should not be a running requirement for them to do so.
  Among our proposals would be the removal of many class exemptions. We would set up a powerful new information ombudsman with the power to compel public authorities to release information on a test of public interest. Members of the public could appeal directly to him if they have been denied information by any public authority. We would set up a parliamentary information Committee to oversee the work of the information ombudsman.
  In summary, the Government's rhetoric and what they have presented to the House are not compatible. They say that they are in favour of greater openness, but their flawed proposals will make more information secret. The consultation period has been characterised by ignoring most of the major recommendations that they received. We are in favour of greater openness and our introduction of the code of practice and our strengthening of it three years after its introduction demonstrate our commitment. However, I have admitted that that code was not perfect, and I would have been perfectly happy for it to have been built on a great deal further.
  The proposals that I have outlined today are simply common sense. If we are to have a Freedom of Information Bill, it must result in more information being released and it must give Parliament a role in ensuring openness. We shall continue along that path in our approach to the Bill. We shall endeavour to ensure through whatever mechanisms that are available to us that, by the end of its processes—if such processes the Bill is granted—it will improve the position and not cause it to deteriorate in the way that the Bill would at present.
  5.59 pm
  Dr. David Clark: It is rather strange to participate in the debate and to consider the Opposition amendment. I am not sure whether I find it galling that the Opposition take the view that we should reject the Bill on Second Reading, and thereby, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, obviate any possibility of improving the Bill, or whether I should put their view down to hypocrisy.
  I have to say, when I consider the history of openness and Government action in this country, that I accept that the previous Government took steps in the right direction when they introduced the code of practice. However, I do not accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the Bill is weaker than the code. It is a psychological as well as a statutory point that, if the Bill becomes law, it will give the people of Britain a right of access to information that they have never had before. That is a mammoth step forward.

  739
  If I am a little indiscreet, it will be in the name of freedom of information, but I recall sitting down, on the first Saturday in May, with my permanent secretary and discussing what was in the manifesto. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated, it contained a clear commitment to introduce a freedom of information Bill. My permanent secretary indicated that there had been almost no work to prepare for such a Bill, for the simple reason that the previous Administration had explicitly—I emphasise the word "explicitly"—decided that there would be no such legislation, so there was no need for any preparation.
  I was faced with the opportunity to introduce a Bill or to put the code into statute. I studied the code very carefully and I saw that it had virtues, but also weaknesses, and I did not think that it was appropriate to proceed with the code. My Cabinet colleagues and I therefore set about drawing up a White Paper. It was two years ago, almost to the day, that I stood at the Dispatch Box apologising to the House because—surprise, surprise—somebody had leaked the freedom of information White Paper. That document was a major step forward that took many hours of work and involved almost every other Cabinet Minister. That work enabled us to proceed with preparing the legislation.
  Like everyone who has wrestled with this problem, I have found that it is not easy to solve. It involves many issues, such as privacy, to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred when she was talking about the Data Protection Registrar. There are two sides to the coin, and it is difficult to get things right. Almost every Member of the House accepts that there are parts of public administration about which information cannot safely be released to the general public, and our citizens clearly understand that.
  Having said that, I strongly believe that, as we move into the new millennium, we must start building a new concordat with our citizens. If we are to be modern and progressive, we must be bold. My view is that there is obsessive secrecy in Britain. Secrecy is almost endemic in senior levels of the civil service, and that must be changed. That is why I was so keen to put forward a radical White Paper, and I was delighted that all my Cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister, endorsed it.
  I read the draft Bill published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I am delighted that he took that to a pre-legislative stage. I read very carefully the work of the two Select Committees—the Public Administration Committee in this House and a Select Committee in the House of Lords. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend saw fit to accept a number of recommendations by those Committees, and this Bill is certainly an improvement on the draft Bill that was before us six months ago.
  I was encouraged to hear my right hon. Friend say—or at least I thought that I heard him say—that his ears are not completely closed to further improvements to the Bill, if we can determine what improvements should be made. That is why the official Opposition, in seeking to defeat the Bill, have deeply flawed logic. I hope that we can use the good will that exists on both sides of the House to improve the Bill in Committee. I shall make one or two suggestions that I believe will strengthen the Bill.
  First, I shall make a general point. One problem, which is not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is that the Bill has become incredibly complex.
  740
  As I listened to the speeches of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, I began to wonder whether I had understood the Bill, because it is clear that there is confusion about the power of the Information Commissioner compared with that of a Minister. I am not sure whether Ministers' interpretation of that power is the same as mine, but I shall return to that important point.
  When I considered overseas examples, I was determined that a freedom of information Bill should be written for the benefit not of Ministers, civil servants, business men or journalists, but of the ordinary citizens of this country, who I believe have a right to know much more of what goes on behind the closed doors of bureaucracy.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: To pick up the right hon. Gentleman's point, does he agree that we need to address the sheer complexity of the way in which this Bill—and far too many other Bills in recent years—has been drafted, and that we could learn a thing or two from European legislative methods, even if, for many of us, that might stick in the throat?
  Dr. Clark: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a serious point. I know that a number of people feel that, in devolving certain powers to other Assemblies, we have missed an opportunity to take a bold initiative and use a different form of language. I accept his point because I, too, wanted a system that was easy to understand and easy to use. One should be able to enter a system that begins with the White Paper and goes right through to the appeals process. The system that I wanted was clear. There were no class exemptions and, although there were some exclusions, access to other information was based on the issue of substantial harm; that would have been a better way to proceed.
  Dr. Gibson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how many amendments have been made since the 1966 Act was passed in the United States and how that Act has changed?
  Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a salient point. I have always argued that the Bill will change; it will change for the better and make the system more open as society changes. We must recognise that and, to accommodate it, we need to include a form of words that gives the Home Secretary various powers to make orders under the affirmative procedure. I note that such provisions are made in the Bill. I was keen that opportunities for litigation, which is so prevalent in the United States, should not be too easily available under our system, and I hope that we can pursue that point.
  I am pleased that the Bill is broad and covers a wide range of public administration. That is correct. I wanted the Bill also to be deep—it may be lacking in certain substantive rights, but perhaps we can put right some of those points. I was encouraged by the rhetoric used today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I pay tribute to his openness, because he is one of the Ministers in this Administration who has been very open.
  I remember sending a missive to my Cabinet colleagues asking which were the oldest documents held by their Departments. I will not regale the House with

  741
  the responses; perhaps my right hon. Friend will do so on another occasion. However, he referred to a document which went back to 1874. He was able to release it with the names of the individuals crossed out. It was important that that was done, otherwise there could have been criminal activity. That was an example of a Minister who tried to be more open.
  A key point made by all hon. Members is that there are opportunities for openness for members of the Government and members of other public bodies, but they do not avail themselves of them. If we are to change the culture, it is important that we change the approach within public administration. I wonder whether—this point was picked up by the Select Committee, and the Government half addressed it by moving clause 8 to a different place in the Bill—it would be sensible to have a purpose clause at the beginning of the Bill. Such a clause would get across to the ordinary man and woman in the street that he or she had the right to access. At the same time, it would inculcate into the administration—into our senior civil servants and public bureaucrats—that there is a responsibility to be open.
  That responsibility exists in the code, which states:
  "The approach to release of information should in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest".
  That point was made fairly by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, and perhaps it is something that we should consider writing into the Bill in Committee.
  Perhaps we should again be considering whether it is possible to play around with "prejudice", "harm", "simple prejudice" and "substantial prejudice". I would be happy to see different categories. In the White Paper, we accepted that advice to Ministers would be subject to a simple harm test. We argued that, for the general release of information, there should be a substantial harm test. There may be gradations and perhaps we could include "serious" in front of "prejudice". It is something that the Select Committee considered.
  The power of the Information Commissioner concerns many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Having considered overseas examples, especially that of New Zealand, I recognise that it is an important issue. If we are serious, as an Administration in the new millennium, about forming a new concordat with our citizens and trying to rebuild trust with them in an increasingly individualistic world, it is important that, on occasion, we trust other people—I am talking of people who will have been chosen carefully and who are experts—to take decisions. As I understand it, when it comes to public interest, it is Ministers, not the Information Commissioner, who will have the final word.
  I know that my right hon. Friend believes that the issue is being exaggerated; he feels that the power will not be used. I point out to him that such a clause was originally in the New Zealand freedom of information legislation, and, in the first six months, there were seven occasions on which individual Ministers overruled the Information Commissioner. The legislation was then changed and the power was given through an Order in Council to, in effect, the entire Cabinet. The power has never been used since. I consider this to be a strong point. I ask my right
  742
  hon. Friend to reconsider the matter before Committee to see whether there is a way forward. It would be a great step forward in rebuilding confidence among our citizens on this issue.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely helpful speech. He talks about the power of the commissioner. Perhaps he suggests that a limitation of that power would be somewhat equivalent to an Order in Council. Our suggestion is for a very senior and carefully balanced parliamentary Committee. Will he comment on that before he brings his remarks to an end?
  Dr. Clark: I was keen, when drawing up the White Paper, that we should try to involve Parliament. I also wanted a simple procedure. I felt originally that, if there were any appeal system to the Information Commissioner, it should involve a Select Committee. I eventually rejected that approach for the simple reason that it was pointed out to me that data protection operated through a tribunal system, and that, in any event, there might be appeals from the Select Committee to the legal system. I do not have a completely closed mind on the issue, but I feel that Ministers should not have the final say. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter.
  On the issue of policy advice, I take hope from my right hon. Friend's initial statement. I believe that the people of this country elect a Government to govern; therefore, it is important that the Government can govern. It is equally important that not every decision is taken in a goldfish bowl. I can understand why advice on current issues between Ministers and their advisers should not be made public. However, I do not understand the exemption of background material—by introducing an exempt category, we are possibly defending publicly weak Ministers and weak advisers. I find that strange, because I am of the view that the Home Secretary is an efficient Minister. I have already said that he is an open Minister. He is also on top of his job.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend would have no hesitation in making available much of the background, analytical and factual information. Not only should Ministers do that, but such information should be available much more openly across government. I would have no hesitation in accepting that every paper relating to my time in the Cabinet Office should be made available. I have nothing to hide. If Ministers and their advisers felt that, at some time in the future, their advice—honestly and openly given—together with the background papers that they drew up, should be made available—this has been the experience overseas—there would be a better quality of advice. That relates to both factual and analytical material.
  I know that my right hon. Friend has said that he might be prepared to move on this issue if we can put forward sufficiently clear wording and a sufficiently cogent case. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has said that the code came up with a form of words. It may not be appropriate, but it could probably be adapted.
  Another powerful point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). In the Select Committee in another place, Lord Butler, who has a great deal of experience of these issues, said, "It can be done." We take encouragement from my right hon. Friend's words and I hope he will listen to the House. We want this Bill to work. It will last us well into the next millennium and it gives us a new opportunity.

  743
  The Government rightly take a great deal of credit for the major constitutional changes that they have made through devolution and right across the gamut. The constitutional change represented by the Bill is probably more important and will probably affect more of our citizens than any other legislation that the Government are likely to introduce.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has moved the Bill a long way forward. There is just a little further to go before he has a very, very good Bill. I hope that he will listen to the House, and that the result will be legislation of which we are all proud. I hope that the House will vote against the official Opposition's motion and in favour of the Bill. I hope that we can then perfect the Bill in Committee.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) in the debate. All those concerned about freedom of information would wish to pay the warmest tribute to him for his role in introducing the legislation. In the name of freedom of information, he revealed that he had won the hearts and minds of his colleagues in Cabinet for the White Paper for which he was responsible. In the discussions that he had with the Liberal Democrats following the election, he had no difficulty in reaching a consensus about what should be done.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am puzzled by the transformation that has come over the Government on the issue. Many of the points to which he drew attention mirror our concerns and are matters on which we wish to make progress during the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary is as open-minded as his right hon. Friend suggested about the possibility of doing that.
  We recognised from the start that the Bill has good points. We welcome the establishment, for the first time, of a statutory right to information in place of the previous effective presumption in favour of secrecy. We also welcome the scope of the Bill, which goes much further in its coverage of public authorities than any of the non-statutory codes or guidelines for which the previous Government were responsible.
  We appreciate the Government's offer of consultation, which led to some changes in the Bill. That was preceded by discussion in Select Committees in both Houses and an extensive trawl of public opinion. That has resulted in a reduction in the time within which public authorities will have to reply to requests for information. We welcome the fact that reasons for refusals must be given, and we welcome the removal of some of the more ridiculous clauses such as the proposed gagging clause that sought to control the further use of information by those to whom it was disclosed.
  However, that welcome must be heavily qualified by the fact that the Bill for which the Home Secretary was responsible and, which has been considerably amended, appeared to be almost paranoid in its approach to official secrecy and would have been counter-productive to its stated objective of promoting openness.
  What has replaced it may not have the same characteristics, but in some significant respects it is deeply disappointing. It bears no comparison with the Government's progressive White Paper, or with the
  744
  principled rhetoric that the Government deployed in support of openness while in opposition. Many of us feel baffled and mystified about how such a timid measure could have resulted from 25 years of Labour party commitment—not to speak of the commitment of my party and others—to effective freedom of information legislation. Some 80 or 90 organisations support the Campaign for Freedom of Information. The Home Secretary is aware of the extent of the disappointment that the Bill provokes.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): I have in my hand the Prime Minister's answer to a written question, which gives me information on how many times the Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee has met. What was on the agenda falls within the ambit of the Official Secrets Act 1911. When the Liberal Democrats had discussions with the Prime Minister after the general election about setting up the new Joint Consultative Committee, what strictures were placed on the Prime Minister by the Liberal Democrats with regard to open government considerations?
  Mr. Maclennan: Following the election, responsibility for such matters lay with the right hon. Member for South Shields. We were entirely ad idem, if I may use a lawyer's expression, with him. As he spoke for the Government, we were delighted to think that we were of one mind.
  It is difficult to take seriously the rather bizarre motion tabled by the official Opposition, who have been staunch opponents of freedom of information legislation for as long as I can remember. No significant Conservative voice has been raised in support—[Interruption.] I exempt the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is to some extent a semi-detached member of his party. He is scarcely enough to provide the Opposition with a fig leaf for the consistency of their opposition to the possibility of such legislation.
  Perhaps the incident that created the greatest public awareness of the importance of the issue was the nexus of events connected with arms to Iraq and the Scott report. Even at the time, when the then Government were under enormous pressure, the then President of the Board of Trade stated during the debate in the House on the Scott report that it was the Government's view that a freedom of information Act was
  "not the right way towards a fundamental opening up of government."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 594.]
  Following the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), I am left in no clarity of mind about the official Opposition's attitude. She seems to be twitting the Home Secretary for not having gone far enough, but fundamentally her position and that of her party seem not to have changed. The official Opposition are hostile to the idea of a freedom of information Act and will therefore vote against the Bill tonight. We shall have great pleasure in voting against the right hon. Lady.
  Before considering the detail—I shall follow closely the line of argument of the right hon. Member for South Shields—it is important to consider the purpose of the Bill. The Home Secretary has spoken of the legislation transforming the relationship between citizen and state, and I go along with him in seeking that.

  745
  Confidence in the relationship between Government and the citizenry is declining. In particular circumstances, it is right that, in their dealings with the state, people should be able know why public authorities make the decisions that they make. Parents applying for a place in a local school, people applying for a grant or benefit, or business people tendering for a public contract should know the criteria against which they are being judged and, as a result of openness, should know that those criteria are being applied fairly.
  At higher levels of government, real openness could play a significant part in rebuilding people's faith in government and in increasing participation in debate. Plainly, the public, Parliament and the organisations that represent the public should know more about the factual foundations upon which policy decision are based.
  We do not contend that thousands of interested citizens will pore over the background reports to Government decisions, but we do say that interested organisations, such as the Consumers Association, Shelter and the Patients Association, should be able to judge whether the Government base their decisions, policies and actions on sound information. They should be able, through their campaigns, to inform the public what is going on and the reasons for it.
  That would help to increase the Government's responsiveness and the fact that such factual information is being made available would enhance the carefulness with which it was presented to Government and so improve the quality of government. That view has been stated again by Lord Butler, someone not notably open in his approach. I well remember his appearances before the Public Accounts Committee, which considered him one of the less communicative permanent secretaries. Even he seems to have been willing to recognise not only the possibility but the desirability of opening up factual information.
  Once again, there has been talk about the possibility of openness bringing about a new political culture. If there is to be a new political culture, it will have to come about as a result of something much more remarkable than the Bill. I endorse what has been said about the complexity of its drafting, although I disagree with the former Attorney-General's view that responsibility lies with the Home Secretary. Responsibility for parliamentary draftsmanship used to lie rather more with the Law Officers, and there was no notable improvement in the standards of parliamentary draftsmanship when the Attorney-General was a Law Officer.
  The Bill is peculiarly serpentine and byzantine in its construction. It does not lend itself to being described as a clarion call for greater openness. The point that I made in an intervention, to which the Home Secretary was kind enough to reply earlier, about the attitudes of Government and what they are doing about it is not wholly answered by the listing of some particular examples of his own openness. I have known the Home Secretary long enough to know that he is anxious to ensure, and has made a personal contribution to ensuring, that statistical information is provided in an objective and open fashion, but he must know that that is not sufficient to bring about the change in culture to which he hopefully referred.
  746
  Civil servants throughout the entire machine require something along the lines of a Cabinet secretary memorandum encapsulating the Government's philosophy of openness—if it is a philosophy that they embrace—a philosophy that has the imprimatur of approval from the head of the civil service and goes wider than the woolly statements about cultural change that have come from those on the Government Benches tonight.
  The Government's White Paper contained language that showed an impressive level of vision and commitment, but the sight of the Government in full flight from that White Paper provides a less-than-convincing inspiration for change. A grudgingly conceded enactment is scarcely the clarion call that is needed.
  I am genuinely puzzled by why the Home Secretary has backed off from the Government's broader commitments and watered down the measure in the manner that he has. I do not know what he thinks he has to fear from enacting the kind of measure that would have been consonant with the White Paper. He is perfectly capable of dealing with criticisms flowing from greater public knowledge of the factors being considered in policy making. His colleagues are as capable as any Ministers in the 32 years that I have been a Member of the House, and those that are not will quickly and properly be extruded from the system. The Government are quite capable of standing up to such debates and arguments, which would be fortified because they revealed the true basis of policy. The Home Secretary's approach is genuinely inexplicable. It leads me to hope that he may be susceptible to argument during the Bill's passage.
  One of the points mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Shields was the purpose clause. I welcome the rejigging of the Bill to set out the rights in clause 1, which gives them a certain primacy. However, that does not go nearly far enough; nor does it reflect the thinking that was present in such a clause in New Zealand in particular, from which the right hon. Gentleman clearly drew inspiration. In clause 4 of their legislation, the New Zealand Government undertook progressively to increase the availability of official information to the people of New Zealand. That was a rubric against which Government measures could be judged and which could be of assistance to the ombudsman in interpreting particular circumstances in the courts.
  The small changes that the Home Secretary has made to the Bill's long title and the movement of the right-to-know clause do not go far enough, and I hope that more can be done along the lines of the Public Administration Committee's recommendation to bring forward an explicitly stated presumption in favour of disclosure.
  There has already been some debate about the powers of the Information Commissioner. It is perfectly possible for the Home Secretary to develop his interventions to point out the extent to which he has powers. We shall no doubt consider that in detail during the Bill's passage. It is also true that the commissioner is a moral force in favour of openness at the heart of public administration. It is her role—we know that it will be Elizabeth France— to advocate the cause of freedom of information, and push and prod reluctant Governments and public servants towards that goal. That moral role needs to be backed by effective legal authority. Where there is a question about where the public interest lies, she should be the person who is enabled to order disclosure in most circumstances.

  747
  I have heard the Secretary of State say that Governments and Ministers are elected to take decisions and that such decisions should not be put into commission, but to take that principled stand is to knock fatally the possibility of there being an independent reference point for judgment of where the public interest lies in respect of disclosure. Ultimately, it makes it a matter of discretion for Ministers. It makes it a political case that their right not to disclose should be more powerful than the public interest in disclosure.
  It is true that Secretaries of State have the constitutional right to decide issues, but they do not have the constitutional right, even under the conventions of our system, to wrap up those decisions in such a way that they cannot be called to account for their decisions. Any decisions that they make should be made in the full light of knowledge about how those decisions have been reached. I believe that, in addressing that issue, it would be sensible for the House to follow the New Zealand example.
  The Scottish Executive has come to the same conclusion, and relevant proposals have been made in Scotland. Although the Home Secretary might dislike those proposals as much as he disliked the White Paper, at which he has whittled away, I hope that he is not proposing to intervene in Scotland, to claw back in any way the devolved power to decide. I take it from his extolling of the virtues of devolution, when asked about the subject earlier in the debate, that he would regard such intervention as improper. It is perverse to do as the Bill suggests—to leave the power of deciding where the public interest lies with those who might be at most risk of criticism if disclosure were to follow. It is extremely unlikely that the public interest in disclosure would be the conclusive factor for those who might fear being caught out for squandering public funds, breaking promises, ignoring reports of child abuse or endangered patients because of incompetent cancer screening, to take some of the examples mentioned by the Campaign for Freedom of Information.
  The proposal to limit the Information Commissioner's power seriously reduces the worth of freedom of information as a means of scrutinising the public service. Moreover, the power to order disclosure in the public interest is even more essential because of the way in which the Bill has been structured, particularly the very broad and numerous exemptions to the right to information that it provides.
  Obviously, freedom of information legislation must protect certain sensitive information that might harm the national interest: on the detection and prevention of crime; national economic interests; information given in confidence; and various other interests. However, it was the White Paper that said:
  "we do not propose that the Act should contain exempt categories at all, but rather that disclosure should be assessed on a contents basis."
  If there has been one U-turn more spectacular than all the rest, it has been the structuring of the Bill in that manner, with those exempted categories, completely reversing the thrust of earlier proposals.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: There has been some mention in the debate of Matrix Churchill and Scott matters. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, those matters—with the
  748
  strong support of the then Opposition—did away entirely with the idea of class claims, which the Government are now resuscitating.
  Mr. Maclennan: I remember that, but I do not recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman being very enthusiastic about the proposals.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's power of recollection is rather poor. I refer him to Hansard, 18 December 1996, column 949.
  Mr. Maclennan: I pride myself on having quite a good memory, but I cannot remember that particular column. Nevertheless, I shall refresh my memory of it.
  The debate on exempt categories has gone backwards. The White Paper proposed seven exempt categories and the draft Bill proposed 22—incidentally, the previous Government's non-statutory code had 15—but the Bill has 24 exempt categories. Furthermore, the Bill provides a power to increase the number, which, given the rate of multiplication that we have seen, must concern us all.
  The class exemption applicable to all investigations that might lead to criminal prosecutions may entail that, in future, other families such as the Reels and the Lawrences who want information about the investigation of their child's death could be turned away. That is only one potential problem. One could think of many worrying possibilities in which public health and safety would not provide sufficient reason for opening up access to important information.
  Some people may recall the food poisoning outbreak in 1996 in Lanarkshire. I wonder whether the facts in that case could have been kept under wraps because of the possibility of a prosecution. I wonder, similarly, whether Health and Safety Executive investigations into rail accidents will be kept confidential because they might lead to prosecutions.
  A report detailing the sale of substandard or dangerous products might also be concealed, under the exemption category of prejudice to a person's commercial interest, on the mere evidence that customers might switch manufacturers if they became aware of the danger.
  Another investigation is being conducted into the 1994 Chinook crash in the Mull of Kintyre. The journalist Tony Collins has suggested that the crash might have been caused by software failure. Will such information be wrapped up and not made generally available because it might conceivably prejudice our defence? Those seem to be serious deficiencies in the Bill.
  The right hon. Member for South Shields mentioned the shift from substantial harm to prejudice. That shift is particularly important in the context of category exemptions. The draft Bill spoke of prejudice being
  "actual, real or 'of substance'",
  and the Home Secretary has said in evidence to a Select Committee that that is broadly what he has in mind. However, that is not what the Bill says. The Bill should state what the Home Secretary really wants to say—if that is what he wants to say. We shall undoubtedly have to return to that issue at great length in Committee.
  On the aspiration that the Bill might change public attitudes, the most seriously objectionable class exemption is that which relates to policy development. It is

  749
  nonsensical for a party that has for years said that it wants to promote more open government to propose excluding all information, regardless of how innocuous, by using the category test. The Home Secretary himself mentioned the Labour party's manifesto, which stated that
  "unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance … and defective policy decisions".
  Evidence on the experience of other countries demonstrates how disclosure of information on policy development does nothing to damage governance. I detected from the Home Secretary's comments on the United States' experience that he thought that that experience had not been helpful. However, comparison with the United States is not sensible. Its system of government—a federal one, with a separate executive and legislature—is so different from ours that comparisons simply cannot sensibly be made.
  Developments in Australia, Canada and, particularly, New Zealand—which seems to have had the most success in working out an effective system—should be persuasive. Ministers should read the 1996 report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on the operation of freedom of information legislation in those countries. I remind the Home Secretary that the report stated that operation of freedom of information in those countries had
  "encouraged objective, reasoned and defensible decision making"
  and that
  "the dire forecasts as to its effect on the candour of advice had not been borne out by events."
  Ireland's legislation has been enacted too recently for us to judge its results, but it resembles that of the other countries that I mentioned.
  As others have said, dividing policy advice and the factual foundations for that advice is practicable. Lord Butler spoke about that in general terms. If the Home Secretary is willing to tackle the matter, others will help to devise suitable definitions.
  On advice, I remind the Home Secretary that our starting point in the recent round of debate was the Scott inquiry. Ministers have a right to define their view of where the public interest lies and to use their democratic mandate to back their claim. However, they do not have the right to erect a wall of secrecy to shield their mistakes from public scrutiny. We have a duty to try to avoid their mistakes. We will be helped by the Bill's improvement. I profoundly hope that improvement will be the consequence of its passage.
  Everyday contact with all levels of public administration should become more open and easily understandable. If that happens, we may change the conduct of public business and relations between the citizen and the state. I ask the Secretary of State to recapture the spirit that informed the White Paper and to seek carefully and deliberately to amend the Bill, which we shall support in principle tonight, to achieve that end.
  6.52 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: On any test, we have taken a long time to reach this point. The Labour party has been committed to legislation on freedom of information since 1974. It is a subject that Oppositions
  750
  tend to embrace with relish and on which Governments have found reasons to postpone legislation with equal relish. However, this time it is different, and we should celebrate that.
  Talking about Oppositions reminds me that today's Opposition ask us to decline to approve Second Reading of the measure. I sat through the last Parliament and watched the then Government decline to accept the Scott report's recommendations on information. They not only declined to support, but ruthlessly destroyed, the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, which was designed to protect public interest whistleblowers. In 1996, I was a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, to which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred. The Committee had a Conservative majority, but recommended that there should be freedom of information legislation. The previous Government rejected that recommendation. Thus, the Opposition do not have much of a track record on which to lecture the House on the virtues of freedom of information. The Opposition have elevated collective amnesia to a political strategy, and made shamelessness their second nature.
  Hon. Members have referred to the code, which was introduced rather casually and as a means of diverting the argument about the need for legislation was not considered significant at the time. The code became effective in its way, not because of its founders' intentions, but through the robust activity of the ombudsman and his successor who presided over it. It became more effective than anyone believed that it would. However, it remained a code. When the Select Committee visited New Zealand and we told people in Australia and New Zealand that we simply had a code, they laughed at the idea that a mature democracy could have an informal code to govern the information rights of citizens in relation to the state. We had to move from a code to legislation. That is happening now.
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman criticises the code that the previous Government introduced, but will he acknowledge that, because it focused on content rather than classes of exemptions, and because, as a code, it was less restrictive than legislation, it allowed greater access to information than the Bill will grant?
  Dr. Wright: I said that the code had virtues, and I shall mention more of them shortly. However, the House should understand its origins and context.
  We have travelled a long way from the White Paper. There is always a distance between a White Paper and a Bill; they are different projects. However, there is a difference in tone between the Bill and the White Paper of only two years ago. I re-read the White Paper last night, and its tone reflected that of a Government who were determined to break down the culture of secrecy and ensure maximum disclosure of information. By contrast, the Bill exhibits a determination to ensure that freedom of information legislation is accompanied by barricades of protection against disclosure.
  On any test, the Bill is an historic measure and marks an important moment. For that reason, it should have a whiff of history about it; it should even sing a little. We

  751
  have heard convoluted talk about purpose clauses, but they are simply ways of making a document as significant as its founders intend it to be. The Bill should not represent a sultry and churlish monotone. We should try to recapture at least some of the spirit of the White Paper.
  The Home Secretary has suffered a good deal of opprobrium. Much of it was unfair for at least two reasons. First, the opprobrium should be more widely spread. The fact that The Guardian claims that the Bill is unsatisfactory does not mean that it is satisfactory. Secondly, the Home Secretary has shown absolute openness in his approach to consultation throughout the draft Bill process. It would have been impossible to approach it in a more robustly open and engaging spirit. That is shown by the fact that we have been able to make improvements.
  The endless reports of the Select Committee on Public Administration, including the most recent, which was published a few days ago, draw to the House's attention the fact that we have travelled a good way from the draft Bill. That vindicates the scrutiny process and the draft Bill process that have been applied to the measure. The Bill would be the poorer had it not undergone the process. Without it, indefensible provisions might have been passed, and the measure would have been much weaker.
  Some people say that the Government have made concessions, but that is the wrong way to look at it. The question is whether the House has made improvements. Those who talk about Government concessions do not understand what is going on or the importance of the process. This is not the moment to remind the House or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of some of the embarrassing features of the original proposals that fortunately no longer exist, but they were defended at the time and no doubt they would have been voted for if the Bill had been dealt with in the normal way. Thank goodness it was not. Scrutiny has been effective and the Bill is being improved.
  This is a Bill of historic importance, with many exemplary features, not least of which is its scope. Some of its earlier defects have been removed, but the question is whether it is now satisfactory and incapable of further improvement. I believe that it is not. We are left with some fundamental issues that have been clarified by the process that has been engaged in. The House simply has to come to a view on those fundamental issues.
  The issues that have already been mentioned touch on the fundamentals of the argument. There is no excuse for finding the issues terribly complicated and difficult. The approach to information should be straightforward: it should be disclosed except when disclosure would cause identifiable harm to a specified significant interest. There should be minimum class exemptions and as much disclosure as possible, subject to a harm test.
  The issue of who decides is also fundamental. The more I think about it, the more I am persuaded of that. We can pass measures, we can have forms of words and we can define exemptions, but it comes down to particular cases. Who will weigh the public interest? Who will decide whether there is a public interest in disclosure that outweighs an interest in withholding? Someone has to
  752
  have the last word in each case. Whether it is to be a Minister, a public authority or an independent person goes to the heart of our approach.
  Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford): Does my hon. Friend agree that one feature of the previous Government that was widely perceived as arrogance was how they identified their interest with the public interest? That is how they operated, but it may also be the British system of governance. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill provides us with an opportunity to put the balance of power back with the citizen, where it should be?
  Dr. Wright: I agree that the behaviour of the previous Government was characterised by arrogance, particularly in their dire closing period. There was a suggestion that their interest was the same as the public interest. All Governments have a vested interest on the issue; they all have a taste for secrecy. It is the job of the House to ensure that it is not satisfied. That is what we are being asked to do.
  I should like to relate those approaches to our arguments about the key issues. Policy formulation is dealt with in clauses 33 and 34. I do not believe that the House will allow those clauses to stand in their present form. They deal in blanket exemptions for categories of Government activity, most fundamentally the formulation or development of policy, as well as the operation of any ministerial private office. There is to be a blanket exemption for information about how many people work in a ministerial private office.
  In case a blanket exemption is not enough, there is a second defence: the test of whether disclosure would prejudice certain interests, including the extraordinary category of
  "the effective conduct of public affairs".
  In case that is not enough, there is also a third defence, which is that the reasonable opinion of a qualified person is sufficient to say whether the second defence provides an exemption. That gives legal weight to what can be political opinion.
  Three defences are organised around policy development. That is unsustainable. I do not think that the House will think that that is the proper way to proceed. The barricades have gone up with a vengeance. Nobody denies that the Government need a thinking, deliberating space. They need a confidential arena in which policy discussion can take place and policy decisions be made. However, equally, nobody should deny that there is also a public interest in knowing the background information that shapes those policies. That is the key distinction which the Bill fails to recognise.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a balanced and well-reasoned contribution. The code that he criticised earlier did not deal with the broad issue of prejudice, but talked about substantial harm. Had the code been introduced as a Bill, presumably it would have satisfied his demand for a narrower definition of exemption, rather than the broad definition in the Bill.
  Dr. Wright: To be accurate, the code did not talk about substantial harm. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment what it said, but I should like to proceed with my argument.

  753
  We are dealing with a crucial distinction. There is no novelty about it. It was first made in the so-called Croham directive back in 1977. It said that "factual and analytical material" would be published once decisions had been taken. The 1994 code said that policy information was to be withheld only if disclosure would
  "harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion".
  There was a presumption of disclosure under the code. On top of that, the ombudsman could recommend disclosure of exempt information on public interest grounds. There was also a provision for
  "facts and the analysis of facts"
  to be disclosed. The code continued the tradition begun with Croham back in 1977.
  The 1997 White Paper gave us what it called a simple harm test. That was less than the substantial harm test that applied to the rest of the provisions, and was simply a question of whether disclosure would harm something that ought to be protected. We then had discussions about the draft Bill, and the Home Secretary told the Select Committee on Public Administration that the
  "issue of factual or background information is important … and I think on the whole ought to be disclosed."
  Unfortunately, the Bill does not convert that desire into legislative provision, but I am heartened by the fact that it might still do that.
  We have had important testimony from people such as the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler, who has said that it is perfectly possible to make distinctions of this kind. The civil service will do it if Ministers tell them that that is how they should proceed. We have a cumulative body of evidence which says that it is both desirable and practical to have such distinctions. However, the distinction is not made in the Bill—contrary to the developing practice to which I have pointed, and contrary to freedom of information regimes elsewhere, notably in New Zealand and Ireland.
  Hon. Members should be clear about what that means. It means that all information relating in any way to the development of policy—including purely factual background information—stands exempt. I simply do not believe that the House will allow that to be sustained. Clauses 33 and 34 represent the hole in the centre of the Bill. At the very least, we need the facts, and an analysis of them. We must explore whether that needs to be only after decisions are made, as is the case in some other places. It is probably better to have a harm test, as we have with the code and as was proposed in the White Paper. However, we have to do something to fill the gap that clauses 33 and 34 now open up.
  We must ask, "Who decides?"—the clause 48 question. The Bill has a tortuous two-stage process governing how we move to discretionary decisions after a first stage of looking at exemptions. We have made progress on the question of who has the last word and who decides on whether, on public interest grounds, there should be disclosure of exempt information. Originally, there was no provision for any role for the Information Commissioner.
  I put on record the fact that we have made progress, and we now have a Bill which gives a recommendatory role to the commissioner. In the unlovely language of the Bill, we have a "discretionary disclosure
  754
  recommendation". I am bound to say that that is not enforceable. It remains unsatisfactory. The Information Commissioner has to have the power to order disclosure in the final resort.
  I asked the Home Secretary earlier whether he could think of examples where the Information Commissioner might use this discretionary recommendation provision to recommend disclosure and a Minister or public body would still refuse to disclose. I do not think that he could think of any compelling example, nor is it likely that he could. Remember—behind the commissioner stands a tribunal. Behind the tribunal stands a court on points of law. It is not as though public bodies or Ministers stood frailly exposed to the power of the Information Commissioner.
  We have reached an unsatisfactory halfway house. If we are going to legislate, we have to legislate. That means moving from the mentality of codes to a mentality which says that we must give an enforcement and order power to an Information Commissioner. This is what happens elsewhere. It happens in Ireland and New Zealand, and it should happen here.
  Knowing that the Information Commissioner has the last word is the real discipline; knowing that someone can get the information out and that it cannot be finally withheld is the crucial discipline. That removes the possibility that public authorities can seek to hide their failures, their incompetence and their shortcomings. It also gives a real underpinning of public confidence if it is known that the Information Commissioner can have the last word in terms of getting information out.
  This is one of the issues which go beyond the normal exchanges between the parties. It is about the information rights of citizens and the quality of our democracy. It is too important to entrust to the judgment of the Government alone, because any Government can think—and find reasons for thinking—that they have an interest in withholding rather than disclosing information.
  Although I am a long-term enthusiast for this measure, I have never claimed that it will be a panacea, or that it will be a remedy for all the ills of Government. I have never denied that there is a balance to be struck at all times between disclosure and privacy and confidentiality. All that is true.
  At the same time, it is not the case—as Governments tend to believe—that the sky will fall in if we move in this direction. The sky did not fall in when the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England were published. Indeed, government was strengthened, rather than weakened, because of that. That is the kind of example to hang on to; it is where confidence is to be found.
  This is a genuinely historic Bill, and it deserves a Second Reading. It already has been improved, and should be improved further. Already, nearly 200 Members of Parliament—including most of the Chairs of Select Committees—have indicated that they would like the Bill strengthened. That is also the overwhelming opinion of people outside the House. The task now for the House is to ensure that that happens.
  7.17 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has just said—particularly that this matter is for the most part beyond the normal conflicts of party politics. I agree also with what he had to say on clause 33.

  755
  I wish to congratulate two people. The first is my hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who, contrary to the opinion of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—who is just going and who made a long, boring speech—is a significant member of the Conservative party. My hon. Friend has espoused this cause with enormous skill and persistence against some formidable opposition.
  I congratulate also the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who produced an impressive White Paper which, in many ways, changed the debate, particularly as we now know that, at the time, he was under threat of the biggest political insult of all—being replaced in the Cabinet by a Liberal Democrat.
  I do not regard it as a step forward that responsibility for freedom of information should now reside with the Home Office. The point has been made that the culture of the Home Office is one of control—police, prisons, immigration and issues of that kind. Officials are sometimes good in that area. However, I am not sure that it is the ideal background as far as freedom of information is concerned.
  The Home Secretary, who is not here, talked about his own deeds. I remember that it was in the name of freedom of information that this Home Secretary placed an injunction on the whole of the British press after a few paragraphs had been reported in The Sunday Telegraph which pre-empted what the Macpherson report was going to say only a couple of days later.
  The Home Secretary has a lot to prove on freedom of information, but so has virtually every Minister who has sat round the Cabinet table in the post-war years. We should show some humility in this exercise. I am personally prepared to say that not every action that I took as Secretary of State for various Departments met the spirit of the White Paper or the code of practice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I hope that I learned from that experience. It is better to be a sinner who repents than one who keeps on sinning without thought or regret.
  My attitude has changed because I, like the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, have come to believe that an atmosphere of openness is in the interests of good government. That is the fundamental point. It may mean that a Government cannot push things through and cannot so easily disguise what they are doing. It will certainly allow the public to play a bigger part in policy formulation. That is good, not bad news for government.
  I disagree with what the White Paper says about the 30-year rule. It says:
  "We have examined carefully the case for change and concluded that on balance it is preferable to retain the 30 year rule which is in line with international practice."
  That is not the most convincing defence. It makes it sound like some sort of European regulation.
  When the White Paper said that, I am sure that Whitehall collectively heaved a great sigh of relief. The rule is utterly outdated. There is a wide range of arguments against it. As a former Cabinet Minister, I want to be around when the papers come out so I can reply to them; I do not want that to be left to some civil servant in the future.
  As it happens, because of my exceptional youth when I went into the Cabinet, I will be only just over 70 when the papers are released, but the Home Secretary will be
  756
  well over 80; he is not very good with police figures now, so goodness knows what he will be like then. When the papers come out on the Government's transport policy—I use the term loosely—the Deputy Prime Minister will be over 90.
  There is another practical reason for change, as the 30-year rule has broken down. These days, former Prime Ministers, ex-Chancellors and former Secretaries of State, including myself, all write their memoirs. We all trail either to the Cabinet Office or to our old Departments to look at the papers, the minutes and the decisions, and we all publish as much as we can get past the Cabinet Secretary. The civil service checks the script for accuracy, which in reality means that one cannot make offensive comments about old civil servants with whom one has served—that, at least, is one aspect of the check—and an account is published perhaps 20 years before the official 30-year limit expires.
  If that were not bad enough, other Cabinet Ministers publish their diaries, which are certainly much more revealing than any Cabinet minutes that I have seen. Dick Crossman started it, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has, I believe, published five volumes of diaries, and now we have a new variation, with the wives of Cabinet Ministers keeping diaries of their husbands' reactions to Cabinet meetings. Lady Richard provides us with a fascinating portrait of the band of chums who make up the present Labour Cabinet.
  For all I know, the Home Secretary's wife is keeping a diary. One can imagine the entry, "Jack came home depressed last night, beaten over the head again by that woman from Maidstone." I do not complain about the situation—what with Lady Richard's diary and that of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), Conservatives are having a field day—but it shows the absurdity of the rule.
  One of the hopes of politics is that one can learn from mistakes and, having learned, make better policy, but the idea of the 30-year rule is to confine any lessons to irrelevant and dusty history. If some time restriction is needed, a 15 or 20-year rule is much more appropriate.
  I am also concerned about clause 33, which covers the formulation of Government policy. Ministers talk of the need for free, unreported discussion and development of policy. I understand that, and I remember how it was, but I also remember cases in which the secrecy of policy formulation led to injustice, especially in relation to relatively technical issues. There were cases which, if the public and Members of Parliament had understood what was happening, would have led to the measure being kicked out.
  On the previous occasion when the Conservative party was in opposition, Lady Castle was Secretary of State for Social Services—the Home Secretary was her adviser—and Lord Barnett was Chief Secretary. The Government wanted public expenditure savings. Inflation had been sky high—it was more than 20 per cent.—but it was coming down. At that time, pensions were uprated on an historic measure of inflation: past inflation was validated.
  The bright idea was then proposed that pensions should instead be updated by a forecast of inflation. With inflation coming down, a period of past inflation was excluded altogether and pensions were not increased by the amount that they otherwise would have been. That may sound like a technical detail but the result was a

  757
  major public spending saving that would now be worth more than £4 billion a year. When the Chancellor of the day announced the policy, he dressed it up for the House in such a way that, as Lady Castle reports in her diaries, some Labour Back Benchers cheered.
  I do not want to make an entirely party political point, as I am sure that comparable issues could be found under Conservative Governments, but the whole intent in that example was to suppress information because the Treasury—I do not blame Lady Castle—feared that, if the public knew what it was about, the policy would be defeated. There would certainly have been a hell of a row, to put it mildly.
  I am not convinced that the habits of Whitehall or the Treasury—I bear the scars of public spending round after public spending round when I was responsible for social security and for health—or, indeed, of Ministers, have suddenly changed.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. Friend speaks of the scars that he bears. Does he not remember that it was under his aegis at the Department of Health and Social Security that spending was increased in favour of the long-term sick and disabled by £6 billion a year?
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is very kind of my right hon. and learned Friend and I am glad that he is still in training to support his old boss. However, I will not prolong the point.
  I do not believe that the habits of Departments, officials and Ministers have changed to such an extent that they suddenly want the public to be given the maximum amount of information. To believe that would be wishful thinking. When the Treasury wants to make a public spending cut, it does not go for something obvious, clear and simple. No, it chooses pensions or social security because it hopes to get away with it, given the complexity of those issues.
  Another example comes from the Home Office—the Department sponsoring the Bill. The House will remember that, after the injunction on the media that I mentioned, the Home Secretary set up a leak inquiry. It was clear that the leak came from a tight circle of people, because not many people had seen the draft report. I asked the Home Secretary whether Ministers who had access to the Macpherson report before 21 February would be interviewed in the leak investigation. I asked him whether the same applied to officials and ministerial advisers. I did not ask him to name them, but I wanted to know whether they would be interviewed. The reply I received from the Home Secretary, who is now in charge of freedom of information legislation, stated:
  "It would not be in the interests of the leak investigation now under way to give these details."—[Official Report, 4 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 855W.]
  That is not a heartfelt endorsement of freedom of information. Indeed, it provides the absolute minimum of information.
  My fear about the legislation is that it leaves too much to a civil service that is not a great believer in open government and it leaves too much to the decisions of Ministers, who are often no better. I fear that, when the
  758
  policy was finally given to the Home Office, there was an enormous sigh of relief all the way down Whitehall because people knew they were safe.
  One of the fascinating features of the debate has been how many voices have been raised against exemptions such as the one afforded by clause 33, including not only the Campaign for Freedom of Information but the CBI. The Campaign for Freedom of Information makes a good point when it says that one of its main concerns are the many class exemptions that protect all information in a particular class, regardless of whether disclosure would cause harm, and that they should be amended to apply only when disclosure could be shown to be harmful. It is difficult to argue against that case.
  Secrecy is not generally in the interests of good government. Openness can remove unjustified logjams. When I carried out my social security review in the mid-1980s, I held public meetings—contrary to the practice of this Government—at which interested parties gave evidence openly. In effect, Ministers acted like a Select Committee. Let us take the example of the death grant. No Government would increase the death grant from about £25 or £30. No Government would reform it or do anything else with it, because the advice was that that would cause an enormous public reaction. It was allowed to continue, even though it was unsatisfactory. When we asked the public, they took the common-sense view that it was better to pay more to those who needed it, instead of paying an inadequate general grant to everyone.
  The more open we can make a Government, the better that Government are likely to be. The public have something to contribute, but they cannot do so if the information on policy formulation is withheld. My concern is that the Bill does not guarantee that that contribution can be made. Freedom of information is about being as open as possible and recognising the public's right to know, but above all it should be about making the process of government of this country better than it is.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on giving the House the chance to legislate, at long last, on freedom of information. Other right hon. and hon. Members have noted that we have waited a long time—it is 20 years since Sir Clement Freud first introduced a substantive freedom of information Bill, which was prevented from reaching the statute book only by the 1979 election.
  More crucial than the long wait is the fact that tonight we are discussing a matter of historic and great constitutional importance. We are determining one of the key elements of the relationship between the citizen and the state—the right of the citizen to know and the powers of Parliament and the Executive to disclose or withhold information. That is the nub of why and how we represent the interests of those who send us to this House. If we can get it right and truly empower the individual citizen and strengthen Parliament in its scrutiny of the Executive, we will have done something of great importance that will last long after most of us have left this House.
  Seen from that perspective, the Opposition's position is even more extraordinary. Others have said that the Conservative Government's record was poor. They lurched

  759
  from open hostility to the whole principle of legislating on this matter to passive resistance to the private Member's Bill on the right to know that I introduced in 1993. Ministers sat and watched the Bill go through its entire Committee stage without engaging in the argument. At a time when the press was sympathetic to the Conservative Government, that Government were nonplussed to find that every single national newspaper was in favour of that Bill and agreed with the need for legislation. It was that shock that led Lord Waldegrave, as he is now, to introduce a code of practice which contained many good ideas—not least its operation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It was a sensible and good code, but its main weakness was that it did not have the force of statute. We now have the opportunity to ensure that we get the best Bill we can.
  The speech by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was sad and confused. It was difficult to tell whether she was saying that we were not going far enough or whether she would rather we did not leave the station at all. She got herself into a difficult position. The only hope that I gleaned from her demeanour today was from the fact that she listened intently to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). From her nods and facial reactions to what he was saying, she seemed to be sympathetic to much of my right hon. Friend's powerful, thoughtful and reasoned contribution to the debate.
  My right hon. Friend made two especially strong points. He said that the Bill as it is now drafted—it is much improved since it was first published, to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues—has become too complex and too convoluted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) illustrated when he talked about the three layers of protection to prevent disclosure on something as simple as the size of a Minister's private office.
  If hon. Members need to be further convinced about the complexity of the Bill, they should recall the reply that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) to a simple question that my hon. Friend has asked before—"How often, and for what duration, does the Cabinet meet?"
  The Home Secretary's answer was byzantine in the complexity with which it dealt with the various stages that would have to be gone through before a simple answer could be given to a very simple factual question—an answer along the lines of, "The Cabinet has met on so many occasions, and meets typically for 20 minutes." I think both those examples demonstrate that, to some extent, the Bill has lost some impulsion in its drafting, and has become complex and convoluted. It will be difficult to try to simplify and clarify it in Committee, rather than adding barnacles in the form of additions—albeit helpful ones. I think that the major challenge in Committee will be the need to return simplicity and clarity to what, in some respects, should be a relatively simple Bill.
  A purposes clause could help. I am baffled by the Home Secretary's continued refusal to introduce such a clause, given that it would be easy to introduce it in the form of a new clause in Committee. The drafting of the New Zealand clause is clear and helpful. Such a clause would cost the Government nothing, and would not cause them to weaken their strong position in preventing the
  760
  disclosure of information. It would clarify the Bill, and would send a strong message not only to adjudicators but to the general public.
  My right hon. Friend reminded the House that the prime purpose of freedom of information legislation was to empower the citizen. That can be done in two ways. It can be done directly, through the granting of rights to the individual, and indirectly, through the granting of rights and powers to the House of Commons and to outside organisations that campaign on behalf of individual citizens. I believe that, in respect of the direct empowerment of the individual citizen, the Bill will have an amazing effect on people: it will genuinely give them power in regard to information that affects their lives.
  When I was steering the Right to Know Bill through its stages in 1993, I received hundreds of letters from members of the public all over the country, telling agonising stories of the destruction of marriages, jobs, careers and income because those concerned could not obtain crucial information. I believe that the present Bill will resolve many difficulties for individual citizens, if we can get the message across—and that means that the Government must promote it.
  The Home Secretary has often said that the legislation is not everything, and that its implementation, and the enthusiasm and commitment of Departments in putting it across, will determine whether it is effective. The Government have done a good job: the potential is there, if the message can be conveyed. It is less clear, however, that the Bill in its present form will improve the position in respect of rights exercised through Parliament and campaigning groups. If it is to live up to the aims of the Home Secretary and the Government, we need to do a great deal more work.
  As many have said, there are too many "class exemptions". "Class exemption" is a piece of jargon that members of the public may not fully understand; in fact, it refers simply to a class of information that can be withheld even if disclosure would not be in any way harmful. When we hear a class exemption described in that way, we must conclude that it is bizarre that it should exist. Surely, if a piece of information is entirely harmless to government, to the public interest, to the security of the state and to any person, it is nonsensical that it should be withheld, but it is to achieve the withholding of certain information in that category—along with the scoop of other information—that a class exemption is deemed to be necessary.
  It is agreed in freedom of information legislation throughout the world that there should be large areas of exemption which, although uniform, apply to different measures, but class exemptions are very different from the test of harm—whether it is a simple test of prejudice or the more important test of substantial harm specified in the White Paper. The Government really ought to consider the matter again; otherwise, the Minister will have a hard job in Committee in trying to justify the scoop of class exemptions that will lead to the gathering of information which—as he will have to acknowledge—is entirely innocuous.
  Clause 33, to which Members on both sides of the House referred, deals with the whole question of factual information. Of course, the question of whether factual information behind the development or formulation of policy should be released is crucial. I am thinking of data,

  761
  analysis, the scientific and technical facts on the basis of which Ministers and their civil servants debate and make decisions; of the cost, and the legal balance of opinion. Only if we as a Parliament, the public and the press can understand such matters will we be in a position to judge whether we are being well governed.
  If our role of scrutinising the Executive is to be fulfilled—a role that many people have claimed is being weakened by much of the legislation that has been passed over recent years—we must have the necessary information. Nothing is more depressing than hearing ill-informed debate in the House, and the exchanging of party political slogans across the Chamber. Such debates take place because we cannot engage with the detailed realities of whether a decision has been well made or not well made.
  This is a crucial issue, which we must get right. It was encouraging to hear that the Home Secretary would leave the door open to discussion in Committee: he implied that, if we could come up with a form of words that would distinguish between factual information that was helpful to informed debate and scrutiny and would still leave the Government the ability to formulate policy in the privacy of Departments, he would be sympathetic to that. I think the Home Secretary needs to deliver on his assurance, and that we, together with Government, need to find a way of making that possible.
  It is interesting that all the matters that we are discussing—the importance of better-informed debate, the need to increase public confidence in the political process and the testing of weakness in government—feature in the Government's White Paper on modernising government. The Government have advocated all those things: they have said that they want to bring about such developments to modernise the way in which we govern ourselves. They say that we must involve other people in policy making as early as possible.
  Those are laudable ambitions, but they will be negated if we cannot get at the facts on the basis of which Governments make their decisions. No one denies that there is a difficult balance to be struck, but no balance has been struck in the Bill so far: Ministers will determine all, and that is wrong.
  The Home Secretary is an intellectually honest politician, and he accepts that that is not satisfactory. I believe that he has left the door open today. At the moment, the Bill is less good than the code, which has a harm test for facts and analysis, and it is much less good than the Irish legislation, under which factual information can be withheld only if it is contrary to the public interest in the opinion of the independent commissioner. It is also less good than the proposals—albeit provisional—for Scotland, in which facts are not covered by a class exemption. This area must be scrutinised in Committee, and progress must be made, but I am encouraged by the Home Secretary's attitude.
  Two more areas of the Bill are weak. The first is part III on the power of the commissioner. He can recommend disclosure, but, unlike in Ireland and New Zealand, and unlike what is proposed for Scotland, he cannot order it. What is the point of a commissioner if he is not sufficiently independent, having come to his conclusions, to make a decision rather than a recommendation?
  762
  For 20 or 30 years—indeed, for ever—we have had to accept that all information is given by grace and favour of the Government. The shift from that to legislation should, if we get it right, remove ultimate discretion from the hands of Ministers, except where there is an important prejudicial point to preserve. The Bill fails to harness the potential of legislation in that way. Ultimately, power will remain in the hands of Ministers. There is much declaration in the Bill, and many improvements. However, by leaving crucial decisions to Ministers, the Bill does not significantly change the position that pertains today.
  The Home Secretary is never shy about saying that he is a good Minister when it comes to releasing information, and he is correct to say so. He demonstrates that information can be released under the present regime, but only by the grace and favour of Ministers. In many ways, the Bill will not change that, and we must help the Government to amend the Bill so that there is a real change and so that Ministers trust the commissioner and their own Bill to protect what must be protected, rather than trusting only themselves.
  Finally, where should the Committee conduct its scrutiny? I believe that the Bill must be taken on the Floor of the House. It is a Bill of enormous constitutional importance, and constitutional Bills are traditionally taken on the Floor of the House. We are sent here by our constituents to represent their interests. The provision of information that would allow us to speak for them on an informed basis goes to the heart of why we are Members of Parliament and how Parliament should operate.
  I hope that the other political parties will join some of us in requiring the Government to take the Committee stage on the Floor. The Bill relates to the powers of the Executive and Parliament and is of enormous constitutional importance. The fact that we have reached the legislative stage means that we should give two strong cheers for the Government, but we should withhold the third cheer until we see the final Bill. Within our grasp lies the ability to change the quality of scrutiny and government. We must not fail.
  7.54 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who maintained the tenor of a debate in which we have heard much cross-party melding of opinion in addition to the views of the Government and the admissions of those of us who have been in government that we have not always got matters right.
  Disraeli said—I think it was Disraeli; much is attributed to him—that what people want in politics is information. That is absolutely true. The fundamental principle in a free society must be that, unless there are powerful reasons to the contrary, the information necessary to decide and legislate on an issue should be as freely and fully available as possible.
  As we have done some party politicking in the debate, I should mention the question of the difference between the Bill, which will put the right to freedom of information on a statutory basis, and the code of practice introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) in 1994, when he was Prime Minister, possibly in response to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central in 1993.

  763
  The code, which was updated by the Conservative Government on 1 February 1997, was a positive step forward, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) acknowledged in his distinguished speech.
  There is a question as to whether the Bill makes any significant advance on the code of practice, which gave a positive right to facts and analysis that the Government considered relevant in framing major policy proposals. That was valuable. The Bill contains a raft of exemptions—12 detailed pages—between clauses 19 and 43, and one must doubt whether there will be any improvement. When the Select Committee on Public Administration asked journalists for their opinions recently, they said that they could detect scarcely a hair's breadth of difference between the code and the Bill. I suspect that the Bill may even go the other way.
  Those who read or hear our debate should understand the point of a "reasoned amendment." The Opposition have been criticised for tabling an amendment that says that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading. This aspect of parliamentary procedure needs modernisation. It is ridiculous that an Opposition cannot criticise a Bill on the Order Paper without demanding that it should not be given a Second Reading. That is one of the fatuities that sometimes arise from procedural developments that grow up in the House. One goes to the Table Office to be told that that is how the amendment has to be. Until that problem is resolved, we shall have no more sensible formal procedure for saying that we welcome a Bill but wish to record by vote that certain changes should be made to it.
  Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): Not having been a Minister in the previous Government, I have just discovered precisely that point. We felt that we should put down a marker tonight to show that we were dissatisfied with the Government's performance over key aspects of the Bill.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I found out the point when I tabled a reasoned amendment to an earlier Bill in this Parliament.
  The defect of the Bill is that it is too restrictive and has too many exemptions. There must be a significant number of exemptions. No one would disagree that defence, foreign relations, criminal prosecutions and some areas of the economy require substantial exemptions. However, the harm test provided is much too loose. The Home Secretary obviously realises that, because he avoided referring to it as prejudice during the first 10 minutes of his speech. As he spoke, I fumbled through the Bill to try to find the word "harm". I challenge Ministers to do so. I think that it is always called "prejudice" or "likelihood of prejudice", which is even weaker.
  The Matrix Churchill case and the Scott report have been discussed. I have an exceptional knowledge of that case, for obvious reasons. The Scott inquiry was held in public and the report was published. If one reads it, one can be well informed about the matter. The difficulty is that, rather like the Bill, the report was infinitely too long, with the result that no one can read it—there is not enough time in a lifetime to read much of what it says. That report made it clear that the public interest test is whether there is real harm or serious harm to the public interest. I doubt whether any lighter test really means anything. One can always argue that something is prejudicial.
  764
  The second point to be made, when comparing with this Bill matters that were rightly matters for public debate at that time, is that I agree with Sir Richard Scott about the candour argument—I did not agree with him about everything and we did not agree about the law, so it is nice for me to be able to say that I was right and he was wrong. But it is true that there must be opportunities for Ministers and officials to talk candidly and in private to each other. Those matters should not be widely reported—they should not necessarily be reported at all. However, one should limit as much as possible any restricting of the background information that surrounds such candid discussions.
  Without breaching Cabinet secrecy, I will give one example of the sort of candid discussions that must be able to take place. On an extremely important matter—which hon. Members would have approached from very much the same point of view from whichever side of the House they came—one of our senior and distinguished colleagues said exactly the opposite thing on two successive days and gave powerful reasoning for each view. Both arguments were valuable parts of the debate that led to what I think was the right decision in difficult circumstances. Had they been reported, however, it would have looked pretty stupid. There is a genuine right to protect candour to that extent, but it should be to the minimum extent necessary. All the surrounding facts that can be brought into the public domain without serious harm to the public interest should be.
  It is difficult to know exactly what powers should be given to the ombudsman who is to supervise, but the powers in the Bill are too weak. One of the interesting aspects of the Committee and Report stages will be to decide how much to leave to the commissioner or the ombudsman.
  I do not like the idea of taking away ministerial responsibility, because one of the advantages of Ministers' having responsibility—this is a constitutional point—is that they can be questioned about their opinion in a way that officials cannot. Unless a Minister is put under huge pressure to divulge information, however, his Department will be on his back urging him to be as secretive as possible, and he may be inclined to be secretive.
  If the commissioner says that something should be divulged but the Minister thinks that it should not, perhaps the matter should come before the House on a motion similar to that on an order, so that the House can express a view. I suggest that for consideration, rather than as a final conclusion.
  Certain aspects of secrecy which will be continued by the Bill worry me greatly. Clause 30, which deals with court records, require that any document served by a public authority for the purpose of court proceedings is automatically exempt. That is dangerous. Since we passed the European convention on human rights into our domestic law—indeed, since European law came into our domestic law—and since judicial review became such an important part of public administration, and I am now going back 25 or 30 years, what is argued in the courts needs to be more openly available to the public and better understood by them.
  Valuable documents are produced for every case nowadays. They are known as the skeletons of argument and are put forward by counsel on behalf of one party or

  765
  another and, in particular, on behalf of Government. In a recent case, the Crown v. Keberline, the Lord Chief Justice thought it right effectively to strike down anti-terrorist legislation. That was a big step, but he would not have done it if he had not thought it necessary. The skeleton of the argument that was put forward—on behalf of the Crown on that occasion—would be extremely valuable for public debate. Indeed, it is an entirely public document, as it has been used and referred to in court.
  Thirty years ago, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) was battling on behalf of what is now called Liberty but was then the National Council for Civil Liberties I think, to be allowed to reveal or justify herself for having revealed documents that had been used in court. No lesser person than the present Lord Chief Justice—as a recently appointed High Court judge—conducted a public inquiry into the matter and made recommendations. The point of those recommendations, which the House subsequently enacted into law, was that documents that had been used in court should thereafter be in the public domain.
  I have been asking parliamentary questions—I still await the answer to one—about whether the Minister responsible for transport will put in the Library the skeleton of argument in the great fisheries case of Factortame. The question has been shifted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I am waiting to find out whether that Department will cough up the answer.
  Those documents, which are produced for a public purpose, should be in the public domain. The courts are getting more political powers. Journalists and Members of Parliament should be able to see, and the public should be able to read, what they are saying. That is an important part of open government.
  I agree with those who have said that the Bill is incredibly complex. It is only an 80-clause Bill. If I had not been sitting here for the past three hours, I would have been in the Standing Committee considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which has 350 clauses. Neither Bills need be anything like as long. The Financial Services and Markets Bill could probably have been dealt with in 100 clauses maximum, and in 50 rather than 200 pages. It would have been a much better Bill for that.
  As the right hon. Member for South Shields said, these provisions could probably have been dealt with in 15 or 20 clauses—then it would have been possible to read it. Bills such as this are impossible for a layman to read, and no lawyer would read them without being paid. It is plain wrong that we should continue to legislate in this way. I hope that there will be more and more complaints about that, and that the message will get through to the Cabinet Office and to the parliamentary draftsmen. Ultimately, it is the Government's responsibility and, with their help, the parliamentary draftsmen will put their heads together and we will get a new style of drafting.
  Yes, the situation was getting worse while the Conservatives were in power and I will not deny that, but it has got gallopingly worse in the past couple of years. I do not particularly blame the Government—except that
  766
  they were not alert to what was happening. They should wake up and let us have simpler, clearer and briefer legislation—and that applies to this Bill.
  Mr. Maclennan: As a matter of historical record, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman clear this up? Which Ministers are responsible for the parliamentary draftsmen? When I had a lowly position in government, it was certainly a matter over which no departmental Minister had control.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is a good question. In my experience, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General had a close relationship with parliamentary draftsmen. We regarded ourselves as the Ministers who should speak up when they felt beleaguered, as they sometimes did. The usual reason why they feel beleaguered is that they receive instructions for Bills far too late and are then expected to have done it by yesterday. I do not think that there is a Minister with responsibility for the parliamentary draftsmen. If there is, I ask the Minister in this Government to put his hand up. I think that the Minister in charge of each Bill is responsible in some way for the parliamentary draftsmen of that Bill. The problem is one of overall ethos, and it needs to be corrected.
  I welcome the Bill, but it has serious faults, which have been rightly identified by hon. Members on both sides of the House. When the Conservatives come back into Government—everyone knows that we have to contemplate that imminent possibility—we do not need to be scared about strengthening the Bill. That is what we should do.
  8.11 pm
  Helen Jackson: I am delighted to participate in the debate because freedom of information and the right to know is something to which I have been committed all my life, especially since I have been involved in politics. The first sign of maturity in small children is when they ask the question why. We carry on from there to the days when I was a member of the Committee that considered the Right to Know Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in the previous Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to be the Labour Member to speak after him.
  We have had an interesting debate so far. I hope that I shall not tread over the ground that other people have trodden very adequately, but I want to make a few specific points. The first is about the Bill's scope. We have become slightly bogged down with it as a Bill relating to Government and Ministers. I was impressed by schedule 1, which lists almost 500 bodies to which the Bill relates. They range from the adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, through the BBC, the Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency and, going down the list in alphabetical order, to the Tate gallery and the Zoos Forum. We sometimes mistakenly think that we are talking simply about Ministers' commitment to a presumption of openness. I want a Bill that lays down that presumption of openness for the whole scope of the establishment that runs our lives.
  Still on the matter of scope, I was interested that the 500 organisations did not include the Child Support Agency, the Benefits Agency or what I might call the

  767
  Of-family—Ofwat, Oftel, Oflot and so on, the regulatory agencies. Why are they not on the list? My constituents seek information about the reasons for decisions that affect their lives taken by the CSA, the Benefits Agency and the regulators as often as they do about decisions taken by Ministers. It is important to get it right.
  I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes in openness. He has done a magnificent job in putting openness into legislation, being open to suggestions, improving his Bill and introducing it in this first Parliament—something that Labour members have argued for. However, the Bill has to affect the other bodies to which I have referred, which may not have a presumption of openness and will take their lead from Ministers. So we come back to why it is so important to get it right and put an assumption of openness in every clause.
  It is something of a lost opportunity that so much emphasis is placed on exemptions. I suspect that the public bodies affected by the Bill and which dominate our lives are not making representations about the Bill to Ministers because they think, "Oh, we need not worry about it. There are all these exemptions. If something crops up, we can always say that we do not need to make something public because to do so might affect the efficiency of our organisation or prejudice the effective conduct of our affairs." They may quote clauses 33 and 34, which relate to Government Departments. Other bodies may take those clauses to apply to them when they want to be less than open about a mistake that they have made.
  In 1984, the Conservative Government introduced the access to information code. At that time, I chaired a local government committee in Sheffield city council. I was even then committed to openness so I welcomed the code. I remember standing up and saying that it was probably the only thing that that Government had thought up with which I had any sympathy.
  As chair of the committee, I used to examine the care with which officers had placed their reports in part 1 or part 2 of the committee agenda. I could not help noticing that when the timetable had slipped, spending was over budget or a department had not performed as well as a council department ought to, there was more inclination to place a report in part 2, which was not open to public scrutiny, than in part 1. That brings me back to the general point of the legislation. We are talking about a Bill which will have to deal with public authorities with their backs to the wall, fighting not to disclose something that inadvertently, for either a small or a big reason, has gone wrong.
  Other hon. Members have contrasted the code, which attempted to separate facts and information from policy guidance, with the Bill. From my experience in local government, I do not believe that it is impossible for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to find a perfectly adequate way of arranging the submission of policy advice so that a distinction is made between the information on which officials present their advice and the informal interpretation of that information, which they may want to talk through with a Minister in the light of a party's policy. It is clearly not appropriate for those discussions to be held in public, but the information and the facts on which they are based should be public. With a presumption of openness in Departments and public
  768
  authorities, that would not be impossible—indeed, it is desirable. Without it, the ground will be cut from under the worthy aspirations of the Bill.
  One example of a public authority with its back to the wall occurred in relation to the tragedy at Hillsborough. I mention that because the tragedy took place in my constituency and was important to the people whom I represent. I have told my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of my genuine concern about the exemption clauses on potential criminal prosecution. The two senior police officers at Hillsborough on that day are facing private criminal prosecutions, although they are no longer members of the South Yorkshire police force. There was a huge desire, not just in Sheffield but in Liverpool, that the full facts and the detailed information held by the police on every aspect of their management of that terrible tragedy—whether video cameras were running and so on—should be open to the public and made available. The Bill must be cognisant of such circumstances and cover them.
  That leads me to the powers and role of the commissioner. In especially sensitive circumstances, there will be disagreement—although not frequently—in respect of the discretionary provisions of the Bill and the balance as to who should have the final say. It would be better to view the establishment and the public authorities as Goliath and ordinary citizens as David, with the Members of Parliament who represent them trying to err on the side of David. As other hon. Members have pointed out, we should trust an independent person to make the final decision, even though, as Members of Parliament, we might find the decision embarrassing.
  Several hon. Members said that we live in a secret society where matters are closed to us. That is not true. In this country, we live in an incredibly free society. We vote often; we have a free press; we do not have a big illiteracy problem; and we can demonstrate, like the farmers at the Labour party conference—even Tommy Archer was acquitted of destroying a field of genetically modified crops.
  Despite all that, however, individuals often find themselves at the mercy of the establishment. I would like some assurances from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers that they will take the Bill slowly, that they will not get entrenched in their own arguments but will be prepared to listen to the arguments of hon. Members, and of those outside this place, and that they will be prepared further to strengthen the Bill.
  I have made those points for two reasons. The first is political, almost romantic: this country needs to defend its freedoms. This Parliament needs to defend those freedoms on behalf of the country; and the Labour party, which has taken so many steps forward on minority rights and human rights, and now on freedom of information, needs to defend its proud tradition.
  The second reason is purely pragmatic: we do not want to pass a Bill that will be out of date almost before it reaches the statute book. We need to acknowledge the power of the internet and of communications, and the rapidity with which information goes international. Information is on the internet; it is open to Europe and to the world. Commercial confidentiality may become a thing of the past, when so much commerce is carried out on the internet. Injunctions to stop publications have

  769
  already become almost worthless, because before we know where we are, we can read all about it on the internet.
  Let us get this important measure on to the statute book in a state that takes us into the next century.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) did her constituents proud. We do indeed live in a land of liberty where none of us fear to express what we feel. The essence of a freedom of information Bill is to give us the information with which to focus the expression of our arguments. After 20 years as a Member of Parliament, I realise that it is not freedom of speech that Governments fear, but freedom of the equality of argument—where the other side knows the facts as well. That is when the public—through us, as their elected representatives—begin to appreciate the dimensions of an argument.
  I have noticed a subtext in the House tonight: the truth is that the Bill is pretty awful. However, it can be amended. Indeed, an early-day motion, supported by at least 140 Labour Members, expressed a wish for amendment of two aspects of the Bill. That seems to be a reasonable request.
  The House also seems to be expressing something wider. It is saying that it understands the difficulties of Government. "Heaven alone knows", some Labour Members are saying, "we suffered nearly 18 years of Conservative Government", but they have set their backs resolutely to a more rational, forward-thinking Bill and Parliament.
  After less than two years, a Government and a Prime Minister proclaimed something about freedom of information in which I profoundly believe. They reached out to many beyond this House—beyond the narrow confines of the politicians who sit here. They said that we, as a people, have a right to the information that forms public policy and thus helps to shape our lives. Indeed, the laws that we make in this place can impose criminal sanctions on those who do not obey them. That is why the process of law making and the central functions of government are of crucial importance in the evaluation of any freedom of information legislation.
  I do not mock the Government for the width of their Bill. I have heard no evidence to the Public Administration Committee that has criticised the Government for extending the provisions across an extremely broad front. However, the activities of central Government are at the heart of freedom of information, and in that area the Bill is notably deficient—I use strong words because I can see the gentle pushing of the Government's supporters to turn the Bill round and make it something substantial, and I would not want to say or do anything that harms a wholly proper, intelligent and sensible course of action, to which I hope the Government will accede.
  My right hon. Friends who have spoken have tried to give expression to the practical experience of Ministers, and, in suggesting what needs to be done, they have centred on some of the common ground shared by those of us who believe in freedom of information. It is true that the Bill is inordinately complex. The principle of freedom of information—the presumption that
  770
  information should be available—is fairly simple. All information should be available unless it causes serious harm. The question that follows from that is, how do we weigh that serious harm? People like me have, for a long time, advocated that decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis—not by classes, because those, as has been pointed out by hon. Members from both sides of the House, produce absurdities.
  The Home Secretary was speaking as though any information about the formation of policy would cause the Government to collapse and would do irreparable harm, but then he was probed and tested on the truth of something that, for many years, was held to be the most sensitive area of central Government information—interest rate changes. For many years, Ministers resigned if they leaked such information. Governments trembled at the thought that the reasoning that had led to decisions on interest rates should be known to a wider public. Yet my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) instituted a system whereby that information—that policy advice, no less—was made available after a short time.
  I believe that the judgment of the world at large, and of most Members of the House, would be that that process turned out to be not only appropriate, but successful. The two things do not often go together at times in our post-war history, but that is what happened—and when the new Government, elected in 1997, came to office, they placed that system on a statutory footing, and the Monetary Policy Committee now publishes its deliberations after a time.
  I cite one instance to show why decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis. There will be, and there are, matters that cause every one of us, on a prima facie reading of the information, to think that that information may touch upon the security of the state, which is one of the blanket exemptions. As a consequence, all information on MI5 and MI6 is exempt for the purposes of the Bill—and I see hon. Members nodding in absolute agreement that those bodies should be beyond an inquiry. All information would be exempt, including the fact that someone is fiddling the books, or the fact that someone—well, we all know the history of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), promoter of the notable Right to Know Bill, said that the measure should be debated by a Committee of the whole House, and that must be right. The Home Secretary said that the Bill was a Government Bill of the first importance. He laboured the point about the Bill's importance by saying that it was a constitutional Bill and was part of the Government's pledge. I accept all that; it is just one those things. However, what issue was he addressing? He was not dealing with the point that the Bill should be considered on the Floor of the House—he was repudiating something that had happened before, and this House moves by precedent. However, the Official Secrets Act 1989 is the other side of the mirror and it was discussed on the Floor of the House. As a constitutional measure, that is where this Bill should be considered. I start from the confused position that this is a much lesser Bill than all the proclamations surrounding it have suggested. However, it can be made something of, and I hope that the Government will listen to that plea.

  771
  I return to the words of the Prime Minister, to the Campaign for Freedom of Information and to the arguments adduced. In the evidence given to the Public Administration Committee, we heard a wonderful justification for the Bill from Lord Lester and I have always argued with a little rubric of my own. First, to honour the hon. Member for Hillsborough, we should remember who we are as citizens of a free, great democracy; ours is a fine system of government by and large. Secondly, how can one have accountable government if one does not know what the Government are doing? Freedom of information is absolutely essential to accountable government. Thirdly, do we not all think that, if a question is considered and more widely debated, the quality of the decisions will be better? Fourthly, freedom of information reinforces ethical government and ethics in government.
  I do not believe that the Scott inquiry or the circumstances of the non-disclosure of the relaxation on the export of armaments would have come about if there had been wider discussion. There is an odd contradiction in our system. It is only when we are in crisis and when something goes badly wrong that we resort—to cover our backs for whatever reason—to a public inquiry. What does a public inquiry give us? It does not give us the pretensions and presumptions of this very limited Bill. Instead, all the facts are brought out to the discomfiture of every element that has combined to create the very repressions and restrictions in the Bill.
  In the Scott inquiry, we saw the lack of ethical conduct by civil servants, the shortchanging, the blind eyes turned to the law of the land, and the conduct of Ministers exposed. Do we seriously believe that that system of conduct of government could have been maintained if we had had proper freedom of information legislation? The very fact that people know that their conduct and the way in which they have conducted their office may be open to scrutiny keeps them, as often as not, on the straight and the narrow.
  I do not know whether the House thinks that my remarks are a cheer for the Bill or a damnation of it. I know, however, that Members of the House of Commons can make this a proper Freedom of Information Bill.
  8.38 pm
  Helen Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). Although I may disagree with him about some aspects of the Bill, he has a long and distinguished track record in arguing in the House for proper freedom of information legislation.
  I come to the debate as a relatively new Member, who began to consider the issue as part of the Select Committee on Public Administration. I confess that I started off partly infected by the belief that freedom of information was an issue for the chattering classes—for politicians and journalists, but for no one else. Having considered the draft Bill and taken part in the Select Committee's inquiries, I have to say that nothing could be more profoundly wrong, because the importance of freedom of information legislation is in the rights that it gives to individual citizens.
  We live in an increasingly complex society, where public authorities hold more and more information and often base on it important decisions that profoundly affect
  772
  the lives of our citizens. If democracy is to function effectively, it is essential that citizens have access to that information and can scrutinise and challenge those decisions. They should also be able to play an effective part in the decision-making process. They should be partners in the process of change, not simply passive subjects. A proper freedom of information regime ought to facilitate that.
  Such a regime is essential to the functioning of a modern democracy, the exercise of citizens' rights and their participation in that democracy. That participation should be continuous and should not be limited to exercising the right to vote at the ballot box every four or five years. Used properly, the Bill should be an instrument to achieve that. Despite some of my caveats about the Bill, it represents a great step forward in giving citizens rights.
  Of course, such scrutiny of information by the public will never be comfortable for an Executive of any party. It is right that scrutiny should be a little uncomfortable; otherwise it would not be working effectively. The Government are to be commended for having brought to the House for the first time proposals for a statutory right to freedom of information. That is the big change that we are debating today. As hon. Members have said, the code of practice had many points to recommend it, but it did not give people a statutory right to freedom of information, whereas this Bill does.
  Properly used, the Bill should lead to more informed debate and more open and better decision making. There is too much unnecessary secrecy in this country, and that secrecy is the enemy of good government and proper decision making.
  The Bill is not perfect—no Bill is—but it has been greatly improved by the pre-legislative scrutiny that it has undergone. In that connection, it is only right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who, as Chairman of the Select Committee, guided those deliberations and evidence sessions with great skill. It is right also to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary demonstrated a great deal of commitment to that process and a willingness to spend time with the Select Committee and engage in that debate. He has not accepted all of our arguments, which, on any objective assessment, are entirely right, but we live in hope of his conversion on one or two points.
  None the less, it would be wrong to underestimate the great strides and vast number of improvements that have been made since the draft Bill was published. The time for compliance with requests for information has been reduced from 40 days to 20 working days, as the Select Committee suggested. The Information Commissioner has been given much greater powers in respect of publication schemes, which will in themselves start to change the culture within which public authorities operate. Steps have also been taken, as the Committee suggested, to prevent authorities from using the exemptions relating to future publication to avoid disclosure.
  It is particularly noteworthy that two of the provisions in the draft Bill that were most criticised—clause 37, which was the so-called "jigsaw exemption", and the provision to allow local authorities to refuse to disclose information on the grounds of self-incrimination—have been completely removed from the Bill that is now before the House. That represents a great stride forward.

  773
  We have made some progress on the discretionary provisions in the Bill. The Select Committee requested that there should be an explicit provision that, unless there was a compelling argument to the contrary, public interest should always be regarded as coming down in favour of disclosure. That was right and proper. Although we have not got there yet, clause 13 contains a requirement that any public authority should balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining an exemption. Together with the Information Commissioner's right to consider those decisions and make recommendations when an authority decides not to disclose information, that is a major step forward in ensuring that public interest is part of an authority's deliberations.
  That, however, highlights one of the flaws in the Bill. Where possible, freedom of information provisions should contain statutory enforceable rights and the presumption should be in favour of disclosure. The Bill has moved some way towards that position. We have clause 1, and the title of the Bill has been changed from that of the draft Bill, which made provision about disclosure of information, to one making provision for disclosure of information. However, it does not yet go far enough.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the Bill would be improved by a purpose clause, and I agree with that. The argument has been advanced that that would tip the balance of the Bill wrongly. I am convinced by the evidence given by the Data Protection Registrar to the Select Committee that such a purpose clause could be drawn up properly to ensure that the balance between individual privacy and the right to know is preserved. It would also make it clear that the presumption in interpreting all parts of the Bill should be in favour of disclosure. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider that further in due course.
  We have heard too much about the exemption for policy making. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will reconsider it. There is a balance to be struck, and the Select Committee heard about the post-it notes philosophy that is prevalent in some regimes where there is total disclosure. I am sure that we can produce a form of words that will allow factual advice to be disclosed while ensuring that Ministers and others can discuss policy and advice without fear of that getting into the public arena too soon.
  The Bill could be improved in respect of the commercial confidentiality exemption. It is right and proper that there should be a class exemption for trade secrets. I doubt whether any of us would argue against that. However, the Bill as drafted allows far too much commercial information to remain confidential because it would be deemed to prejudice a firm's commercial interests. There should be an explicit public interest test to balance the test of whether something would prejudice a firm's commercial interests. Where a commercial interest should properly be protected, public safety should come before that. As drafted, the Bill would prevent disclosure or allow firms to avoid disclosure of information about defective products or products that cause harm to the public. That cannot be justified.
  774
  The powers of the Information Commissioner have been mentioned frequently in the debate. I agree that, with regard to the discretionary provisions in the Bill, the Information Commissioner should have powers to order disclosure. To maintain otherwise is not consistent with moving from a code of practice to a Bill that gives people statutory rights. I am not convinced by the argument that Ministers are accountable to Parliament, whereas an Information Commissioner is not. The Information Commissioner will be a Crown appointee responsible to the House. The line of accountability could be maintained in that way.
  I welcome the Bill, but I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider those provisions. It seems hard that we should pick out what is wrong with the Bill, but I hope that they will accept that we do so in a constructive spirit. Despite its flaws, the Bill represents a major step forward in citizens' rights. It is a landmark piece of legislation.
  I fail to understand the argument of the Opposition, who would vote against the Bill rather than constructively amend it in Committee. That is a step backwards indeed. It is tantamount to telling citizens, "You have information at the discretion of Government, but you have no statutory rights." It is an argument that cannot be maintained. I urge hon. Members to reject the Opposition motion and vote for giving the Bill a Second Reading, so that we can improve it still further.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. David Davis: I propose to follow some of the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who made an admirable speech, full of common sense.
  I do not approach the issue from the perspective of a freedom of information enthusiast—not for its own sake, in any event. For any measure that comes before the House on that subject, my test is whether it makes democracy and government work better. It is a simple test and, in some respect, the Bill fails it.
  I agree with those who say that our present system is too secretive. One of the reasons Whitehall takes on so many first class brains and occasionally turn out second-class results is that much of our policy consideration is too secret. There are plenty of proper exclusions. Anyone who, like me, has worked in the Foreign Office as a Minister, particularly at security command or in negotiations, would know that many subjects should not appear in the public domain instantaneously.
  However, that should not be applied across the board. The class exemption applying to all information relating to formulation and development of Government policy, including factual information, is a ludicrous blanket exemption.
  Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and interested in what he said about his experience at the Foreign Office. He will remember that, earlier this year, I wrote to him and asked him to release papers relating to his conduct as a Minister at the Foreign Office, in the interests of freedom of information and transparency of government, and he declined to do so. Can he explain why he has changed his mind, if that is what he has done?
  Mr. Davis: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman brings the debate down to that level. He was not seeking freedom

  775
  of information at all. First, no one made any allegation about my behaviour. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do so outside, we can test it in the court. Mr. McGilligan, the ambassador at the time, made it clear that I behaved entirely honourably.
  Secondly, the papers to which the hon. Gentleman refers cover sensitive matters. Thirdly, they are past Government papers and therefore subject to strong limitations. Fourthly, that intention comes as hypocritical in the extreme from a supporter of a Government whose Prime Minister does not even publish a transcript of a meeting with Bernie Ecclestone, which is not a sensitive matter, and then goes on to claim that he supports freedom of information.
  On the substantive issue—the blanket exemption that applies to factual and other information relating to policy matters—there are two areas in which the civil service security blanket could be removed: first, with regard to factual matters, and secondly, with regard to the options available to Ministers. Most Ministers do not make decisions entirely on the basis of their own experience. They are offered a series of options by civil servants. Broadly, those options should not be secure. It would be useful for Parliament to know what the Government were choosing between, what other options were available and whether all the options had been presented to the Minister. It is a rare Minister who invents options of his own unless he knows the subject well.
  Information about the options available and the factual basis on which decisions are made—not the recommendations themselves; the civil service does not have to defend itself—will improve the whole basis of public decision making. The public will have a better understanding of decision making at ministerial level, there will be a better policy debate at the time and, after the event, there will be a better review of ministerial performance. For all those reasons, it would be worth while to amend the Bill to include such a provision.
  Such a measure would undoubtedly also lead to better advice. Robin Butler made that point when giving evidence earlier on the matter. Civil servants, knowing that the judgments would be much more exposed to public consideration, would give better and more considered advice. It would also be practical. Both Robin Butler and Terry Burns have argued that the provision of advice, evidence and options could be separated out. For all those reasons, this would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill and would pass my test by improving democracy and government.
  I missed part of the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I would specifically reduce the exclusion relating to Law Officers' advice. Having been a Minister, I know that Law Officers' advice is virtually set in tablets of stone. It would be greatly to the advantage of Parliament to know precisely what the Law Officers' advice was, because that sharply constrains Government's decision making and options. All that information should be available.
  Quite a strong harm test would have to be applied. One of the weapons that Ministers employ when negotiating with other countries, be it on Europe or security matters, is to look hard at the modus operandi of other Governments. If matters were opened up, extra
  776
  information would be given to those negotiating against us, so the harm test would have to be subtle and thorough. Nevertheless, that should be achievable.
  Who will decide what should and should not be released? One group of people who should not decide are those who are affected by disclosure. If we are not careful, that is what will happen in many circumstances. Even the best of intentions can lead to the wrong outcome. As a Cabinet Minister, I asked the chief medical officer why we could not publish hospital performance data. His response was that a certain tabloid newspaper would have the headline "House of Death" over the picture of a hospital. Sadly, I moved on before I was able to pursue the matter. I hope that I would have resolved it in favour of publication.
  Given what has happened in Bristol and elsewhere since, I regret enormously that I was not able to stick with the issue. The chief medical officer was making a well-intentioned argument. He did not want to destroy the morale or the management of the NHS, which was his responsibility, but one can see only too clearly how such a well-intentioned aim is not always to the advantage of the public at large.
  Mr. Mackinlay: In the recent Kosovo conflict, we understand that the Attorney-General advised the Government on the legality of NATO's action, and that that advice cannot, and will not, be disclosed. However, it is material to us in politics to know what that advice was, and that is the sort of thing that could, and should, be disclosed.
  Mr. Davis: That is a very good example of the type of legal advice—equivalent to the Law Officers' advice—that I was describing earlier, and I can think of no reason why such advice should not be disclosed. Although I appreciate that, over time, the Law Officers and other lawyers have made the current arrangements to suit themselves, I do not think that it is necessarily worth while for us to continue with those arrangements.
  Recently, the Intelligence and Security Committee had a press conference on the matter of the MI5 and MI6 buildings. Just before the previous general election, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my predecessor as Public Accounts Committee Chairman, recommended that spending on those buildings should be put into the public domain. Immediately after the election, I made the same request. The Intelligence and Security Committee has also made the request. Although we have not received a reply, I suspect that we shall receive one.
  When we do receive a reply, hon. Members should ask themselves what harm has consequently resulted. There will be no loss to the national interest, but there may some loss to individual interests. Cui Bono will be a good test to apply in making that assessment.
  Time and again, Public Accounts Committee members have come across matters that should have been put in the public domain long before the National Audit Office got to them, but which were not put in the public domain because the people deciding on disclosure were also involved in the matter. If the decision on disclosure were not strictly for the commissioner, the people involved in resignations—such as those of the heads of various education institutes, of English Heritage, and of the South Birmingham health authority—would be the ones who were influential in a

  777
  decision on disclosure. The proper outcome, therefore, is that the Commissioner should have the power to decide—not only to recommend—disclosure, subject only to appeal to the information tribunal.
  There is a subtle implication in the proposal, and it is for whistleblowers. Now, properly and rightly, we have protection for whistleblowers, but it is still a risky exercise for whistleblowers to rely entirely on that protection. Current protection might protect one in one's current job, but it will not protect one's career prospects. It is therefore brave—sometimes perhaps even idiosyncratic or eccentric—to be a whistleblower.
  If the Bill's provisions on disclosure operate properly, a whistleblower would simply have to say to someone, "Ask this question," and the risk to the whistleblower would be eliminated. That is a very important element of the legislation.
  In my role as Public Accounts Committee Chairman, I am for ever coming across matters that the National Audit Office has discovered and that, in the public interest, we have subsequently exposed. Unless a whistleblower acts, that is the only way in which problems, improprieties and injustices might be exposed. If those matters are not exposed, the public interest will not be served. If nothing else, the Bill will help us in pursuing that objective.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): It is a privilege to participate in a debate that has consistently been of a high standard. I have also agreed with much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides the House. Nevertheless, the shadow Home Secretary would have done better to read the Bill before coming to the House to castigate it.
  I welcome the Bill—whatever its deficiencies, it is a major step forward. Although much has been said about the code of practice, the code is limited in scope and, ultimately, is voluntary. The Bill will confer new and statutory rights on citizens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said very clearly, the Bill will give citizens new rights of access to information about the way in which their daily lives are administered—the bread and butter issues that really affect how millions of British people live.
  People will be able to obtain information on the way in which local government makes its decisions and health authorities and hospitals develop their priorities; on the conduct of police and the Prison Service; and on how local schools are run, admissions policies are operated, and further education is managed. Even more than central Government—and certainly more than the internal workings of Whitehall and ministerial offices—those are the institutions, agencies and organisations that dominate the daily life of the people whom we represent, and it would be a big mistake to overlook that fact.
  When the Bill is passed, it will enfranchise and empower millions of people across the United Kingdom. I am more interested in the men and women whom I represent in my constituency than in the journalists on The Guardian and other distinguished newspapers who would like to know every last bit of tittle-tattle that passes between advisers in a Minister's office, important and titillating as that might occasionally be.
  778
  The Bill must be considered in the context of a broad and radical programme of constitutional reform. Power has been devolved to Scotland, Wales, and—historically—in the past week to Northern Ireland. A strategic authority for London is about to be established. At last, we have incorporated the European convention on human rights in our legislation. We have made an important start on reforming the House of Lords, and the Government have introduced the Representation of the People Bill. All those measures give up power from the centre and yield the Government's power to the people. Giving up information is another way of yielding power. It is no coincidence that Governments who exercise the greatest control over information tend be the most repressive Administrations—those who most eagerly and efficiently deny power to the people.
  The process is not without difficulty and the translation from White Paper to draft Bill and then to Bill has not been easy. However, the Government should be commended for tackling challenges from which previous Governments of all parties have shied away, and for admitting, as the Home Secretary did this afternoon, that further amendments could improve the Bill and strengthen the rights that it confers on citizens. That process demonstrates the exercise of democracy. It is the dialectic of a proposition that is argued, criticised and improved. The process involves the exchange of ideas, to find common ground and consensus and to identify and isolate important issues of principle about which we cannot agree. In great matters of constitutional reform, all parties should strive together to find a solution.
  I commend the process that has already been undertaken. As other hon. Members have said, the new and welcome practice of introducing draft legislation, especially to Select Committees, has been vindicated. There was widespread consultation on the White Paper. The Select Committee on Public Administration let the Government know its views. The draft Bill that followed was, in some ways, a retreat from the principles of the White Paper, but in others, it strengthened the Bill, not least by providing for tribunals. The Select Committee commented constructively on the draft Bill. Dialogue between the Select Committee and those who framed the legislation proceeded. The Bill that we are considering is better than the draft Bill in many respects, but it is capable of further improvement.
  For all the dialectic, exchange of views and continual modification, the Bill remains flawed. The Home Secretary sets great store by the need for the culture of secrecy to be changed, and by his expectation that that will happen. He is right to say that that there is a culture of secrecy and control in Whitehall and Westminster and that it should be changed. We need to shift the presumption in the way that we are governed from secrecy to openness. That will create a radical change in the relationship between the citizen and the state. It will shift the balance between the rights of the citizen to demand that the Government be accountable at all times and the state's ability to control information and the administration of daily life.
  It is essential that that cultural change puts the citizen at the centre of the process of government and make Ministers and civil servants truly accountable. If we are to restore the citizen's trust in government, the Government must trust their citizens more than at present. The Bill does not place the Government's trust sufficiently in the people whom we represent.

  779
  When the Home Secretary appeared before the Public Administration Committee, he bridled somewhat when I suggested that information was the oxygen of democracy—without information it is impossible for democracy to flourish—but that he seemed sometimes to regard it as the carbon monoxide of democracy. I did not mean to insult him or denigrate his commitment to the legislation. I was suggesting that he was over-protective of the citizen, as if the inhalation of the oxygen of information might harm them.
  That is a slightly paternalistic approach. It is well intentioned, but wrong. It shows a laudable commitment to open government, but it is not the same as conferring the right to know on the citizen. It is not the same as giving up the Government's monopoly on information and accepting that citizens may come upon information that others would be eager to keep from them.
  If freedom of information is to be truly effective, Governments have to be prepared to make mistakes in disclosure. The change of culture to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary refers is a leap of faith. All leaps of faith involve risks and hazards, but in a truly mature democracy, we should accept those risks freely. That is what happens in a free society based on a mature relationship between the governed and their Government.
  Three principal shortcomings in the Bill go to its heart. The first is the absence of a purpose clause, about which others have spoken. The second is the existence of blanket exemptions. The third is the limit on the Information Commissioner's powers. The purpose clause, more than any other, should signal the cultural change that we all seek. It should leave civil servants in no doubt that power has shifted from the panjandrums to the people. The Bill allows civil servants to manage change without being subject to it. That is a weakness in the proposals. The absence of a purpose clause leaves Whitehall in charge, leaves citizens' rights abridged and weakens the rest of a Bill that its presence should inform and illuminate.
  A great deal has been said about the exemptions. I concede that some areas of public administration are sensitive and it would not be sensible to divulge information about them. Every speaker has accepted that the right to know is no more absolute than the right to freedom of speech. James Madison, the American president who gave us Madison Square garden, also said:
  "Knowledge will for ever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
  The class exemptions that remain in the Bill disarm the citizen. They close off vast territories of information and knowledge, irrespective of whether disclosure would cause harm. That is the key point. I take little comfort from a commitment that today's Ministers will always err on the side of disclosure. They may well do that, or set out intending to do that.
  I apologise to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), as I did not mean to tweak his tail in my intervention. However, I elicited from him the kind of response that I might have expected—although not because it was he who gave it. He reeled off at least three or four reasons why the information that I was
  780
  seeking from him should remain concealed. There may be good reasons for that—there may not. I am not in a position to judge.
  Mr. David Davis: I am.
  Mr. Bradley: Frankly, that is not good enough. I do not make this point ad hominem, because other Ministers in previous Administrations, in the current Administration and in Administrations to come have made, and will make, the same special pleading when faced with disclosures that they would rather not make.
  I take little comfort from a commitment that today's Ministers make and that tomorrow's Ministers may not. Legislation that does not foresee the possibility of a change of Government, and does not provide rights that can withstand such change, is flawed legislation. I would argue that the provisions of the Bill should be founded not on good intentions, but on statute.
  According to the Consumers Association, 69 per cent. of people polled do not trust Ministers to disclose information when it is sought. This Bill is as much about trust in Government and restoring people's faith and confidence in the way in which they are governed as it is about the freedom of information. That is precisely why Ministers should not be given the last word. It is also why Ministers should not seek to have the last word.
  For all information, in my view, the only test should be whether its release would cause harm and whether its disclosure would prejudice the public interest. That judgment itself should be open to contest by the Information Commissioner, whose own decision, after all, is subject to appeal. In that way, both the citizen's right to know and the public authorities' need, on occasion, to withhold information are preserved.
  Thus, authorities will not be seen to have an automatic right to conceal their mistakes or wrongdoings. Nor will commercial interests have the opportunity to conceal, for example, the dangerous goods that they are seeking to market for commercial profit.
  The central issue is the limitation that the Bill places on the powers of the Information Commissioner. The commissioner is not, and should not be, merely a cipher. She will be the advocate of openness. Sometimes, she will support and acknowledge the need to withhold information, but she must be—and must be seen to be—the citizen's champion. She will be able to exercise that onerous responsibility only if she has powers that are enforceable on the citizen's behalf, and if she has the power to enforce those decisions without fear or favour.
  The ombudsman's experience of the code—this is the weakness of the voluntary code—has been that recalcitrant Departments and public bodies have too often exploited the ombudsman's lack of enforcement powers by challenging not just the ombudsman's judgment, but his interpretation of the code. Successive ombudsmen have commented on this matter. I am indebted to the Campaign for Freedom of Information for providing those sources. We should all pay tribute to the campaign for its extraordinary work over a long period. The fact that the Bill has been introduced is much to its credit, its major problems with some of its central planks notwithstanding.

  781
  In 1995, former Ombudsman William Reid said of the code:
  "there is a tendency in some departments to use every argument that can be mounted, whether legally-based, Code-based or at times simply obstructive, to help justify a past decision that a particular document or piece of information should not be released instead of reappraising the matter in the light of the code with an open mind."
  Two years later, when the code had been in operation for three years, Mr. Reid's successor Michael Buckley said that departments
  "fear that they are setting a precedent … they do not want to say yes, that the department accepts this interpretation of the Code. It turns into a process almost of negotiation".
  Somewhat more colourfully, he said:
  "if the Government wants me to act as referee we cannot have a situation in which every time I award a free kick everyone troops off the field for an elaborate investigation of the rule book and to telephone the FA."
  Those well-chosen words illustrate amply why a voluntary code, well intentioned though it may be, is ultimately ineffective.
  If the Bill is to bring about the culture change in Whitehall that we seek; if it is to lead to a better understanding of, sympathy for, and commitment to, the way in which we are governed; if Ministers are truly to be held to account; if there is to be transparency in public administration; and if we are to restore public confidence in Government, the citizen must know that the Information Commissioner can, and will, enforce his or her rights.
  I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the concessions that have been made by, for example, reducing the response time from 40 to 20 days, removing rights to restrict the way in which information gained by citizens can be used, removing the jigsaw clause and the protection from self-incrimination, and limiting Ministers' rights to create new class exemptions.
  A very few more significant amendments will make a good Bill immeasurably better. It will, if he wants it, provide my right hon. Friend with a lasting testament to a truly radical, reforming Government, prepared to reinvigorate our democracy and to redefine and extend citizens' rights, not only in principle but in practice.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: This has been a good debate. Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself deriving some pleasure from the speech of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). The main feature was a lot better than the trailer that we had during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). Perhaps it is best to draw a veil over that.
  I agree strongly with what my right hon. Friend said about the policy side of the Bill and the ill-fated clause 33. I also agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He spoke compellingly and has some political and moral capital that he can expend on this cause, as has the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to whom the whole House listened with great interest and who spoke, as he saw it, for the interests of the man in the street.
  782
  There is a mood in the House—among all parties—in favour of greater openness in government. There is also a general feeling that the Bill as it stands falls short of being what the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) characterised as an all-singing, all-dancing Bill. I hope very much that the Government will listen carefully to the excellent points made not only by Conservative Front Benchers but by Government Members too.
  I want to identify the Bill's biggest deficiencies. I agree with the comments made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about the extent of the exemptions, and those exemptions that rely on the prejudice test. I am also dubious about that test. It will leave England in a different position from Scotland, and I am not as relaxed about that as the Home Secretary.
  The Bill's biggest deficiency lies in the way in which it treats the workings of central Government. I agree with the House of Lords Select Committee, which said:
  "It is fundamental to Freedom of Information law and practice that government information is seen as belonging to the people, who have a right to see and use the information unless there are good reasons for exempting it."
  If the Government cannot set a good example on freedom of information, what can we expect from others?
  As it stands, the Bill is defective, because clause 33 would impose a wide exemption on matters relating to Government policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made some good points about class exemptions, and clause 33 contains a class exemption par excellence. It does not require a test of prejudice: information can be withheld purely because it falls within the class described in clause 33. That is a wide exemption from the requirement for disclosure.
  I am grateful to the Campaign for Freedom of Information for an overview, which I share:
  "The exemption is not limited to sensitive civil service advice, or to information whose disclosure would harm the decision-making process or the frankness of internal deliberations. It applies to all information considered during the development of a policy, including purely factual information, analysis of the facts, scientific advice, mundane exchanges between officials, extrapolations from existing trends or simple descriptions of existing practice."
  Those would all be outside the freedom of information requirement because they fall within clause 33. Anything that would not be caught by clause 33—although it is hard to envisage what that could be—would be caught by clause 34, which contains a harm test.
  A "qualified person" has to decide whether one of the various forms of prejudice described in clause 34 arises. Who is the qualified person? It is none other than a Minister of the Crown. As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase rightly said, the tortuous process has two stages. The Minister's decision can be examined to see whether he got it right. Who examines that decision? Under clause 13, it is the Minister himself, again. I am not sure how a Minister should go about that process. Perhaps he should take his decision under clause 33, go to bed, and see whether he is in a better mood the next day to examine it under clause 13.
  The Minister has to decide whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption in question. However, the key point in clause 13, which covers the whole area of Government advice and many other issues, is that it is a purely

  783
  discretionary disclosure. Indeed, that is the title of the clause. Ministers decide. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) wrote a very good book called "Ministers Decide", but when the Home Secretary leaves office he will have to call his book "Ministers Decide Everything". Ministers will be judge and jury in their own cause.
  Clause 33 contains a wide exemption. I asked the Home Secretary about that, and why information that was wholly innocent and did not cause any prejudice to anybody would be excluded by that clause. I was not convinced by his answer and, without wishing to be too partisan, I must say that I caught the odd whiff of smoke and glimpse of a reflection when I heard the Home Secretary's reply. The clause must be reconsidered and the feeling on both sides of the House is that we need more objectivity and impartiality.
  As it stands, the clause would require Ministers to show impartiality and wisdom of almost saintly proportions. Set against the presentational needs that face all Governments and Ministers, it would expect a lot of them. It would be much more realistic if we were to have a true override—not a discretionary one—with Ministers' decisions being examined by someone else. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made some good suggestions about the role that Parliament could play in that.
  As it stands, the Bill does a great deal to protect officials—rightly, in some instances—but it is, I fear, a Bill with which Sir Humphrey would feel far too comfortable, and of which he might even be a little proud. At present, the Home Secretary is in danger of seeing his photograph take pride of place in Sir Humphrey's office.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): Greater openness in Government is one of those issues that can always be expected to stimulate a lively argument in the House, and today's debate has certainly lived up to that expectation. We have been treated to many fine speeches, but I shall single out those of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
  More to the point, the debate has confirmed the Government's difficulty in persuading many of their own side, as well as Conservative Members, of the merits of the Bill as it stands. That should come as no surprise to the Home Secretary—who, I am sorry to say, has not yet arrived—because, for all his bluster, mingled with his customary charm, he cannot seriously have expected seasoned campaigners for greater openness to swallow his argument that a statutory framework would in itself guarantee a culture of openness.
  In its current form, the Bill is not a guarantee that more information would be released than is released now. What matters is that the provisions cover as much information as possible, and are enforced by a strong independent body with the ability to compel public authorities to release information. The Bill conspicuously fails to meet that test, as anyone who has listened to the debate will conclude.
  We are being asked to approve a Bill that manages to make more information secret than is the case now. Several Members have referred to its failure to provide a
  784
  proper mechanism for the release of information, data, facts and analysis providing advice for the purpose of ministerial decisions. Too much discretion is left in the hands of Ministers and officials. One after another, my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), the right hon. Member for South Shields and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), the hon. Members for Hillsborough, for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) expressed dissatisfaction with the Bill in that important regard.
  The right hon. Member for South Shields supported the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that Lord Butler had it right when he said that an arrangement could be made to segregate information from advice, but the Home Secretary, as ever, seems unconvinced. We know that 195 Members, in the last Session, signed an early-day motion tabled as recently as 19 October, referring to the Government's failure in this respect. They also expressed concern about the fact that the Information Commissioner would have inadequate powers to release information on the grounds of public interest. That, too, characterised the debate: speaker after speaker made the point that there must be a degree of compulsion that is sadly lacking in the Bill.
  This, we believe, is the litmus test of a commitment to greater openness. The debate has demonstrated that the Government have failed miserably in that regard. Conveniently, it will still be Ministers and officials—the Sir Humphreys to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred—who decide whether information should be released. That is not progress.
  The Home Secretary's detailed explanation of the Information Commissioner's powers to require release managed to confuse even the right hon. Member for South Shields, who probably knows more about this subject than anyone else. The Home Secretary was uncharacteristically disingenuous—
  Miss Widdecombe: Uncharacteristically?
  Mr. Greenway: I am being kind to him. He knows full well that many hon. Members are concerned that the commissioner will have no power to have the final word on whether information should be released in the public interest. Nor does the Bill offer real progress on the kind of information that should generally be available. Hon. Member after hon. Member has confirmed that the Bill represents a step back from the code of practice on access to Government information, which we published in 1994 and strengthened in 1997.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that the code had virtues. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire said that it was a positive step forward. The hon. Member for Hillsborough was good enough to say that she had welcomed it. In the White Paper, Ministers criticised the code for having too many exemptions. There were 15, but the Bill contains more than 20–12 pages of them—and provides no proper test of harm. Too many exemptions will make it more difficult for people to get hold of information. The Bill therefore represents a significant

  785
  shift of attitude from what Ministers said both in opposition and in a White Paper that promised a king's banquet rather than a Bill that delivers a dog's breakfast—and a complex one at that.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The hon. Gentleman has to do better than that.
  Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the debate. Speaker after speaker has expressed disquiet about the Bill. The hon. Member for Hillsborough called it a lost opportunity. We have heard time and again that it does not go far enough. We are prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading and to take it on trust—"hope" was the word used by the right hon. Member for South Shields—that we will be able to amend the Bill in Committee. However, what the Home Secretary has said is only marginally encouraging. We heard his usual noises about listening to arguments, but the Bill falls significantly short in many key areas.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross hoped that the Home Secretary would be susceptible to change, but talked about the Government's being in full flight from the proposals of the White Paper. He said that the Bill was timid, and that the power of Ministers to decide the public interest was perverse. He supported the right hon. Member for South Shields and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on the need for a purpose clause, which the code covers.
  How bad would the Bill have to be before the Home Secretary and his colleagues would support a reasoned amendment that seeks to censure the Government's approach, asks the Government to reconsider and recognises that the Bill makes more information secret than our code did? Although they agree with our unresolved criticisms of the Bill, many hon. Members have criticised our reasoned amendment.
  Mr. White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I do not have time.
  What is wrong with asking the House to ask the Government to reconsider the Bill and produce a better one? The Bill is less effective than the code, and we are being asked to take a great deal on trust.
  The Home Secretary referred to the two devices used in Australia to delay publication of information. His own device is remarkably transparent: publish a Bill, knowing that he has to give ground on some issues, allow lots of consultation with a Select Committee and pre-legislative scrutiny, then publish a revised Bill, which his hon. Friends can say today is much improved. Throughout the debate, however, one speaker after another has expressed continuing fundamental concerns about the Bill.
  That is why the House is entitled to ask the Government why they are in retreat from their White Paper proposals. Why have they changed their mind? Have they lost their nerve, or has the experience of power blunted their enthusiasm for greater transparency? Or is it, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) said, because civil servants have managed to introduce change without giving up control? That says it all.
  786
  Perhaps the right hon. Member for South Shields, for whom I have the highest regard as he well knows, will follow the example of some of his right hon. Friends and publish his memoirs at an early date, so that we can be enlightened further as to why the Government have had such a remarkable change of heart.
  While we have serious criticisms of the Government's revised approach, which are reflected in our amendment, we want to stress our commitment to strengthening the provisions in the Bill if the House gives it a Second Reading—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary should calm himself and wait and see. Had he listened to the entire debate, as I have, he could not feel comfortable as a senior Minister in a Government when one after another of his Beck Benchers has criticised the key elements of the Bill. Had they more courage, they would be joining us in the Lobby.
  Our approach to the Bill will reflect the positive attitude displayed in our code of practice, so that the emphasis is clearly one of a presumption in favour of release of information, rather than in secrecy. The hon. Member for Warrington, North spoke in support of a statutory right to disclosure. That is not what is in the Bill. We will try to remove several of the class exemptions, some of which do not sit easily with a supposed culture of openness. We will also work to ensure that the provisions of the legislation are enforced by a body that can force public authorities—that has been the demand in the debate—and Governments to release information in the public interest.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) explained in her opening remarks, our preference would have been for an information ombudsman and a role for Parliament—for this House—in overseeing the release of information. The hon. Member for Hillsborough said that, in reality, it will be a David and Goliath situation and that we ought to trust the independent arbiter. We agree and, to ensure that the Bill is strengthened in that regard, we shall seek support from Labour Members in Committee and on Report—which will be an interesting event judging by what we have heard tonight. It cannot be right that Ministers and officials have the final say on whether information is released.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. I have much sympathy with their argument. Having heard so much opposition to the Government's measures from their Back Benchers, we would relish such a Committee.
  The Home Secretary claims that the Bill represents a sea change in providing access to information, and that the culture of secrecy is over. He asserts that introducing a statutory right heralds a new era of openness. The debate has shown that many of his hon. Friends, as well as Conservative Members, are not fully convinced of that. They have demonstrated serious reservations about key aspects of the Government's proposals. The general mood of the debate demands that the Home Secretary should think again. Right hon. and hon. Members can reinforce that concern by supporting our reasoned amendment.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has some brass

  787
  neck. In 18 years, the Tories failed to create any statutory right to know. Their code of practice was non-statutory and effectively unenforceable. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said from the Conservative Benches that the Conservative Government set their face against freedom of information legislation. Now they have the unmitigated gall to criticise a Government who are creating a statutory right to know. The Tory party is without credibility on freedom of information. Tory Members' pious posturing is a case of, "Do as I say and not as I did for the past 18 years".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) described the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) as a sad and confused affair. I chide him. He was too harsh. Let me defend the right hon. Lady. She has a difficult brief. Having done nothing to end the culture of secrecy in Whitehall for 18 years, she now opposes a Government who are acting to tackle it. It is difficult for her. At one point, she favoured keeping things as they were—the old inadequate code. Then she wanted to amend the Bill to strengthen and support it. Then she wanted to deny the Bill a Second Reading and prevent any amendments being tabled.
  The right hon. Lady told us that she had done her homework and that there was some logic to the various U-turns. By the end of her speech, I thought that they had become S-bends. I am sure that there was logic somewhere, but she could not explain it to us, just as she could not explain why she kept secret a pile of prison reports on her desk for a year. At least when criticisms come from the Liberal Democrats or from our own Back Benchers, they have the merit of coming from those who have a record of supporting a statutory right to know. We have the opportunity in the weeks to come in Committee to deal in depth with criticisms of the Bill, but I will deal with some of the main ones today, including the main Conservative ones.
  Disagreements about a Bill containing such detail are inevitable, but let us set out the common ground between the Government and many of my colleagues on the Back Benches who expressed concerns and made excellent contributions to the debate. It was a very good debate. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) received warm and deserved tributes from many hon. Members. It was an important contribution to the debate. Excellent speeches were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). A thoughtful speech was made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis).
  The level of agreement is profound. We all agree that the Whitehall that we inherited is too secretive. It is unnecessarily secretive. It is secretive by culture, and unnecessary secrecy can be profoundly undemocratic and corrosive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North said.
  As the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, there is a mood for greater openness in the House. The Government and Whitehall recognise that there is a need to be more open, but I say to our critics that the advocates of freedom of information do not have a monopoly on righteousness. There is a tension between
  788
  the right to know and other values. If we were debating a right to privacy today, many of those who advocate freedom of information might also advocate a right to privacy for Britain.
  The Government hold information about individuals. They usually have no consent to make that public. Journalists may well want access to information held by Government, but it is not always right to hand it over. What may be suitable for The Guardian is not necessarily right for Britain.
  Companies give substantial amounts of information to Government about commercially confidential matters—such as their financial intentions, their approach to their competitors and the internal affairs of their business. Interestingly, under United States freedom of information legislation, companies made up to 60 per cent. of the requests for information because they were trying to find out about the commercial secrets held by their competitors. If British-based companies believed that, under freedom of information legislation, our Government would unnecessarily hand over commercially confidential information to the press or competitors, it would restrict our ability to obtain otherwise sensitive information about financial movements, the environment and health and safety issues.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North suggested that an explicit public interest in disclosure should be referred to in the exemption for information. I point out to her that clause 13 contains a requirement to consider the public interest in disclosure.
  People also expect Government to be run according to the principle of collective responsibility. Parties are the basis of democratic government. By their nature, parties are coalitions and there must be room for legitimate discussion within any Government. There must also be room for senior officials to advise Ministers without their advice appearing on the front page of national newspapers a little later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) rightly referred to the need for a legitimate area for policy formation—limited, yes, but necessary. Government is still too secret, but the public interest is also served by some recognition of a right to privacy, some rights to commercial confidentiality and the right to develop an efficient policy advice system within Government—as well as the right to know.
  None of those values is absolute. There can be no absolute right to privacy, confidentiality or internal Government debate, any more than there is an absolute right to information in all circumstances. Those are rights for the balancing. There is a natural and creative tension. It is perfectly legitimate and proper for each country to determine how, within its culture and history, it gives different weight in its laws to each of those values. Ireland, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and other countries have struck the balance in their own way. They may all be useful examples, but they should not be regarded as templates forcing us down a particular route. We must seek our own solution in robust debate in this House and in this country.
  Some people have a tendency to point to all the most liberal propositions in the legislation in other countries. They then add up all those points and say that a failure to meet the test of being the most liberal on all counts is a betrayal. That is not what we promised in our manifesto.

  789
  The Bill delivers a sensible and balanced package, reflecting the importance that we attach to freedom of information, as well as to privacy of the individual, while not permitting the abuse of our legislation for commercial advantage; it will enable effective democratic government.
  We welcome the chance to debate those issues with colleagues. We have shown that we are willing to listen and we shall continue to do so. The recognition of the need for balance is essential. I welcome that recognition, especially in the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. I point out to my colleagues that, although various newspapers—including The Guardian—have orchestrated a principled campaign on this matter, what is right for journalists is not necessarily right for us.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough asked whether Ministers were entrenched. I assure her that we are not. We are convinced that we have found the right balance. We do not have a monopoly on wisdom in these matters, but we are prepared to engage in vigorous debate and we are not afraid to listen.
  Freedom of information is a three-stage process. First, hon. Members should remember that, in the Data Protection Act 1998, the Government have already granted the right to access to personal files held by public authorities. Many other countries regard that as the core of what they call freedom of information. In a sense, we already have in place provisions that enable members of the public to look at their files.
  In the Bill, we are in the process of implementing the second stage—access to wider Government information. The third stage has also begun, with the publication of yesterday's strategy to begin opening up the culture of Whitehall and other public authorities.
  Some countries have tough FOI laws but have had limited changes in the culture of the bureaucracy, so FOI has had limited success in creating openness. Other countries, such as New Zealand, have concentrated less on the wording of the legislation than on the cultural changes and have achieved a greater degree of openness. Legislation is only part of the process. It provides the essential legal base, but creating a new culture of openness is in many ways the real test.
  Yesterday, the Home Office published the report of a working party on openness in the public sector, which demanded that public authorities now start the process of putting in place that culture of greater openness. To some extent, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already published a large amount of information previously held secret. We are in the process now of creating a new culture in Whitehall and among public authorities. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald says that it was done under her code of practice. It was not under her code of practice; it was a decision by Ministers that they wanted to be more open, unlike the previous Government. The present Government were prepared to publish these things.
  A classic example, which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald should remember, is the seven piles of documents on the guidance given to immigration officers, which she wanted to keep secret and which my
  790
  right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I decided to put into the public arena. That information has done no damage to immigration controls. That was an example not of the right hon. Lady's code of practice, but of moving forward on freedom of information voluntarily.
  However, we need to do more than give Ministers the right to move forward voluntarily. We need a new culture in Whitehall and among all public authorities. Some have asked, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, what if the Government should change? What if there should be some other Government who were not as open as the present Government are? That is why the cultural change is necessary. We intend to push forward this agenda, building stage upon stage to create a new openness in Government, which will remain for decades to come. That is what the Government are committed to, and that is what we intend to deliver.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) voiced several criticisms about the number of clauses dealing with exemptions. He claimed that there were 24 exemptions in the Bill. There are in fact 25 clauses dealing with exemptions, but most of the subject areas remain largely the same as they were in the White Paper "Your Right to Know"—national security, defence, international relations, law enforcement and others with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar. However, we have added Parliament and other bodies, such as the National Audit Office, to the exempted area. We must protect parliamentary privilege, so we have had to add some exemptions for them. Because we have broadened the Bill, we have had to add some narrow exemptions.
  The Bill will deliver a statutory right to know in Britain for the first time ever. There will be more information about health authorities delivering services, about the police dealing with burglaries and thefts, about schools, about local councils and about every area of government, including local government, and how our public authorities work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) said that the Bill marks a fundamental shift of power from the state to the people. Indeed it does. The Conservatives talked about FOI; we shall deliver it. All that they came up with was a non-statutory code. I confess that I did not even know about it, and I suspect that most people did not. The Conservatives' FOI code was kept secret; we need to ensure that we are now public. The Bill will deliver openness and deserves support. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 377.

  Division No. 12]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clappison, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Brady, Graham

  Collins, Tim

  791

  Colvin, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Faber, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Right, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Gale, Roger

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Robertson, Laurence

  Gibb, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Green, Damian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Greenway, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spring, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heald, Oliver

  Steen, Anthony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thompson, William

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Trend, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Tyrie, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Viggers, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wardle, Charles

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Letwin, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lidington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Willetts, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Wilshire, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Luff, Peter

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Madel, Sir David

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ballard, Jackie

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Battle, John

  Allan, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ashton, Joe

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Austin, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Baker, Norman

  Bennett, Andrew F

  792

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blackman, Liz

  Doran, Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dowd, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drew, David

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Borrow, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Brake, Tom

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  Breed, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Reid, Rt Hon Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Fisher, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burnett, John

  Flint, Caroline

  Burstow, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Follett, Barbara

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cann, Jamie

  Gapes, Mike

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caton, Martin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cawsey, Ian

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chaytor, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chidgey, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Church, Ms Judith

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Grogan, John

  Clelland, David

  Gunnell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hain, Peter

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hanson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Corbett, Robin

  Harvey, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cotter, Brian

  Healey, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cox, Tom

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Crausby, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Heppell, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cummings, John

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hill, Keith

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoon, Fit Hon Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hope, Phil

  Darvill, Keith

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davidson, Ian

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davis, Rt Hon (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Hurst, Alan

  793

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Norris, Dan

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Oaten, Mark

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Olner, Bill

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keetch, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kemp, Fraser

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kidney, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Plaskitt, James

  Laxton, Bob

  Pond, Chris

  Lepper, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Levitt, Tom

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Linton, Martin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Livingstone, Ken

  Purchase, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lock, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Love, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Raynsford, Nick

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rendel, David

  McDonnell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McFall, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rooney, Terry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Roy, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruane, Chris

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Salter, Martin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Maxton, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Merron, Gillian

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Snape, Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Sotey, Clive

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  794

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tyler, Paul

  Stevenson, George

  Tynan, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wareing, Robert N

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Webb, Steve

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Willis, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (DoncasterC)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Timms, Stephen

  Wood, Mike

  Tipping, Paddy

  Woolas, Phil

  Todd, Mark

  Wray, James

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Committee to the whole House.—[Mr. Greeway.]
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 327.

  Division No. 13]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burstow, Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Baker, Norman

  Ballard, Jackie

  Chidgey, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Clappison, James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Bercow, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Blunt, Crispin

  Collins, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Cran, James

  Brady, Graham

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Brake, Tom

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Brazier, Julian

  Breed, Colin

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Burnett, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Burns, Simon

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  795

  Faber, David

  Moore, Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Feam, Ronnie

  Norman, Archie

  Flight, Howard

  Oaten, Mark

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Page, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Garnier, Edward

  Paterson, Owen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Rendel, David

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ruffley, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hammond, Philip

  Salter, Martin

  Hancock, Mike

  Sanders, Adrian

  Harvey, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hayes, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heald, Oliver

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

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Keetch Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Key, Robert

  Thompson, William

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Townend, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trend, Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wardle, Charles

  Lidington, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Livsey, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Luff, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Willis, Phil

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Woolas, Phil

  Madel, Sir David

  Yeo, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Ainger, Nick

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainsworth Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Austin, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Alexander, Douglas

  Barron, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ashton, Joe

  Beard, Nigel

  796

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Edwards, Huw

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Efford, Clive

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benton, Joe

  Etherington, Bill

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Betts, Clive

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flint, Caroline

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gapes, Mike

  Browne, Desmond

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cann, Jamie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hain, Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Drew, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  797

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kidney, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lock, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roy, Frank

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruane, Chris

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McFall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sawford, Phil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNamara, Kevin

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Merron, Gillian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stevenson, George

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Norris, Dan

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Todd, Mark

  Olner, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Neill, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pendry, Tom

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Tynan, Bill

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Watts, David

  798

  White, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wood, Mike

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Wray, James

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wyatt, Derek,

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL [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 Freedom of Information Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase attributable to the Act in the expenses of the Secretary of State in respect of the Data Protection Commissioner (renamed the Information Commissioner by the Act), the Data Protection Tribunal (renamed the Information Tribunal by the Act) or the members of that Tribunal,

(b) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State attributable to the Act,

(c) any other expenses incurred in consequence of the Act by a Minister of the Crown or government department or by the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and

(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): 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),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.

  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  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, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1999–2000 and the Pre-Budget Report 1999 shall be treated as if they were instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Touhig.]
Question agreed to.

Tenant Farming
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly? We must begin the Adjournment debate.
10.28 pm
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): It is fortuitous that this Adjournment debate should follow the statement on rural development regulation made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know, this is the second debate—in as many years—that I have initiated on the subject of tenant farming. In November 1997, I focused predominantly on county council smallholdings. I want to broaden the debate today to discuss the plight of tenant farmers more generally, but I shall make some remarks about the county council smallholding sector, as we have not made as much progress as we might have done.
In my previous debate, I noted the grave circumstances of many county council tenants, with falling incomes and a declining asset base. It gives me no pleasure to say that today we face an even more difficult situation. The recent Deloitte and Touche report shows an industry in sharp decline, with almost all sectors in crisis. It is easy to focus on all the problems. I do not want to exaggerate them, but it is important to understand the problems of the tenanted sector. My hon. Friend the Minister will sympathise and will do what he can to get redress for those concerned.
I have drawn heavily on the experiences of my friend John Warfield of Welches farm, Standish—a dairy farmer on part of the Gloucestershire county council farm estate. John has regularly shared with me the problems of being a tenant farmer and told me how difficult it is to break out of the cycle of despondency and despair that affects farmers in general and tenants in particular. I have also drawn on the views of George Dunn, the chief executive of the Tenant Farmers Association, and Ken Oliver, the chairman of the National Farmers Union tenants committee, who are doubtless well known to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Although the tenant farming sector has been declining in importance until recently, it still represents about 30 per cent. of the productive land area. It relies on its stock and working capital for its assets base as the value of the land, including the house, and the fixed capital normally rest with the landlord. I do not have to remind my hon. Friend that the value of livestock and other working capital has greatly plummeted in the past couple of years in particular, whereas land and buildings have tended to maintain their value. Compared with their owner-occupier neighbours, tenants are more exposed to the current problems. It is also a worrying trend that many tenants are cashing in their investments early to see them through these difficult times. For many, the decision is between security for today and security for the future. I worry tremendously for them when they come to the end of their tenancy agreements.
Although the major clearing banks have been supportive of agriculture through these difficult times, they are looking carefully at the risk to which they are

801
exposed in lending to tenanted holdings or servicing existing debt. Once again, tenant farmers are at the forefront of the problems, because they have no capital other than that which they have invested in the farm buildings and stock. I spoke to the manager at one of the major clearing banks in my area. He explained how closely they were monitoring the situation. At least there is an understanding of the nature of the problems. I welcome the fact that bank managers have an opportunity that they did not have previously to use their local knowledge and understanding.
One way out of a difficult situation is to take on extra land. That should be possible through the operation of farm business tenancies, which allow tenants to spread fixed costs and make smaller units more viable. Tenants face major disadvantages, because they are unable to tender the rent levels that owner-occupiers pay for extra land offered by landlords. Although farm business tenancy rents are beginning to fall, they are still unrealistically high. That is due mainly to the fact that the number of farmers seeking to take on extra land exceeds the land available and the landlords willing to let it.
It is clear that new entrants have difficulty in getting started. One disappointing aspect of today's announcement is the lack of a retirement package. That does not help the situation. I understand what my right hon. Friend said and I am sure that he is interested in working on that, but we are talking about a difficult industry and many issues need to be dealt with to get it right.
On land prices, I have advanced the view before in this place that it is highly unlikely that agriculture land values will fall by much, if at all. This is because, in our small island, such values will be affected by their opportunity cost and what alternative uses land might be put to. Given that the main alternative use is development, it is therefore highly unlikely that the land price will fall unless we drastically toughen the planning system. Nevertheless, that brings opportunities, because it means that the land is available. What better use could be made of that land than to offer it to tenanted farmers? I would always advocate that point of view, and hopefully I would get support in so doing.
So far, I have painted a gloomy picture, and I cannot pretend otherwise. However, it is important to look at the opportunities—as well as the many threats—and the way in which the Government can help to develop these opportunities. We have had an important announcement today, and I think that everyone present would welcome the nature of it and the completely different direction in which we are now moving.
I want to make two pleas in welcoming today's proposals. I have touched on one, which is that we still need to make every effort to come up with a retirement package—not just for existing farmers, many of whom want to leave the land, but to allow new people to come on to the land. Apparently, it is difficult to achieve that at this time through rural development regulations, and my right hon. Friend the Minister was honest and open about the fact that he cannot pretend that he can achieve that within a foreseeable period. I have grown used to him pulling rabbits out of the hat, and would hope that some further prestidigitation is possible.
802
The Government rightly talk about the need for restructuring, and the rural development package will allow us to achieve that. However, there is another factor on which I wish to dwell—whether it is the Government's intention to modulate farm support to fund the different elements of the rural development regulation package.
The Minister will be aware that it is much more difficult for farm tenants to engage in some of these schemes because of the lack of economies of scale, and so on. I presume that the Minister will have some comments to make about the way in which we can help tenants—particularly in areas such as the movement to organic farming, or how they can make better use of countryside stewardships. It is not just up to the Government—it is also up to individual landlords to make those changes feasible.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that concern has been expressed about some of the other changes that are taking place, particularly with regard to the integrated administration and control system renegotiations, which are coming in at short notice, and the change in subsidies for beef cattle. Concern has been expressed to me by tenants about the way in which we are apparently moving over to six counting days, as that will be difficult to manage. We have to be aware that that may do the opposite of what we want it to do—it may lead to even more intensification and short-termism.
I want to deal with the subject of less-favoured areas. Concern has been expressed by the tenanted sector over the switch from headage-based support to area-based support in hill areas. I know that the Tenant Farmers Association in particular is not pleased with the scheme, but sees it as inevitable and something that it will learn to live with. The main concern is that tenants will lose more of their capital base. As I understand it, the TFA scheme—proposed as a compromise following consultation—provides that producers should be able to take a capital payment at the beginning of the five-year period of the scheme, allowing them to look at possible avenues for restructuring or other activities to make their income base more viable for the future. I would welcome the Minister's views on those proposals.
Farm business tenancies have clearly offered more land for letting than was coming forward under the previous legislation on agricultural holdings. However, as I have indicated, there are problems which need to be addressed, and I understand that the Government are committed to a review of the operation of farm business tenancies in the autumn of next year—the fifth anniversary of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. I hope that the review will include the imbalance in negotiating power between landlords and tenants, the unviably high rents, the restrictive clauses included by landlords in FBTs, which were meant to provide greater flexibility to tenants than the old legislation, and the relatively short average length of letting under FBTs.
There is a further major problem with the FBT legislation, which was intended to ensure that, under the 1986 Act, tenants would not be affected by the change in the law. I have become aware of situations in which tenants on 1986 Act tenancies may lose that status because of small changes or good estate management. I am informed that section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 covers those situations in which a new tenancy falls to be regulated not by the 1995 Act, but by earlier legislation, including the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.

803
When there is a change to a 1986 Act tenancy because new land is added, a joint tenancy is created, so the landlord is keen to provide the tenant with a bigger holding; but I gather that, under a case B notice to quit and other circumstances, the tenant can be disadvantaged. The loopholes must be closed in an amendment to section 4 of the 1995 Act.
Gloucestershire is very dependent on the dairy sector. Tenants are worried about the threat of the loss of milk quotas, which the official Opposition welcome, as I am sure the Government will in theory. The problem is that, in the short term, tenants will lose a source of collateral for the banks, and because, although land price rises compensate owner-occupiers, no such benefit accrues to them.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that county council smallholdings are an important part of our farming economy, covering more than 300,000 acres.
Mr. David Heath: I agree with almost every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that the problem that has bedevilled the counties that are trying to maintain the smallholdings estate is the apparent mismatch between the policies of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—the DOE as was—and those of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that we need a clear policy direction for local authorities on whether the county estate is to play a significant part in providing tenanted farming?
Mr. Drew: I do not disagree at all. The first thing that local authorities should do is make a clear statement that they want to hang on to that estate and manage it accordingly on a long-term asset basis, rather than viewing it as a quick return. I have always been worried about the 6 per cent. return, which is totally crazy for land.
There has been a good return on county council smallholdings. In March 1997, the last year for which we have figures, there was an £8.4 million surplus—almost doubling the previous year's surplus. It will not be so good now. We must build on the opportunities that that provides.
There are difficulties with the law on smallholdings. Section 36 of the Agriculture Act 1970 gives a statutory duty to provide farms to those who want to be farmers in their own right, but there has always been some worry among farmers and representatives about how genuine that statute will prove when it is fully tested. There has always been a view that central Government may have a role to play in making it clear to local government that they are fully committed to that, even though they do not have a direct influence in the matter.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister conduct a strategic review of the national importance of these assets so that we can get a genuine understanding of their importance not only to agriculture, but to the whole rural economy?
I shall make two positive points to set beside the rather gloomy picture so far. People still want to become tenant farmers, and that is certainly true of the county council farm estate. We should do everything that we can to make that possible, which is why I have already mentioned the need for some sort of retirement scheme. Co-operation between tenants can also provide opportunities. They can
804
compete more effectively by joining together. I know that the idea of co-operation does not always have a true resonance among farmers, even though many of them are members of one or other form of co-operative. If we could encourage co-operative activity, the farmers would be the biggest gainers.
I have listened with interest in the past few months to the views of Ben Gill, the president of the NFU, who has advocated co-operation. In Gloucestershire, Charles Coats, the manager of the county farm estate, Martin Wright of the NFU and George Dunn of the TFA are shortly to meet to consider ways in which they can increase co-operation. They realise that there is no better way for farmers to improve their marketing skills than to be able to service the county council by providing produce for schools, homes and the work force in general.
We have a successful farmers market in Stroud, led by Clare Gerbrands. That provides many opportunities, but farmers need the wherewithal to develop them. I have also been impressed by the ideas of the Plunkett Foundation, which is able to advise farmers on the best ways to help each other. I look forward to my hon. Friend's response, because it is important to draw the plight of tenant farmers to the attention of the House and those outside. We must see tenant farmers as part of the rural fabric and anything any of us can do to help that is important.
10.47 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on obtaining this debate. No other hon. Member has taken such a close and detailed interest in the tenanted sector of the farming industry. He has raised several important points and I shall try to deal with them.
I assure my hon. Friend that the work undertaken by the Tenant Farmers Association in pursuing its members' interests is respected both by my ministerial colleagues and officials. We meet TFA representatives regularly and they are important consultees. We listen to their views carefully and they influence our policies.
The tenanted sector is important for the farming industry. Some 34 per cent. of farm land in England is tenanted in one form or another, but the sector is part of a broader picture—that of the agriculture industry as a whole. Although most of my remarks tonight will address particular issues for tenants, others will deal with matters of wider application to farmers generally, as my hon. Friend will be well aware.
I wish to make it clear that the Government recognise the real difficulties being faced by the agricultural sector and the wider rural economy. The dramatic fall in farm incomes over recent years has affected the whole industry. For that reason, the Government have introduced a variety of measures, including more support for hill farmers in the shape of an additional £60 million in hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1999 and 2000, and the securing of additional EU funds as compensation to farmers for the strength of the pound relative to the euro, with £227 million already paid and £293 million to come.
It is recognised that the measures taken as necessary safeguards in the wake of the BSE crisis entail potential costs for the industry. For that reason, the Government

805
are paying for cattle passports at a cost of £22 million per annum, and for specified risk material inspections at a further cost of £18 million per annum. Those measures will be of direct benefit to the livestock sector, especially in the hills and the less-favoured areas—the LFAs.
As my hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend announced today a radical redirection of support for agriculture and a significant increase in expenditure on rural development measures, under the rural development regulations. I am very pleased about that. The second pillar of the common agricultural policy—as the rural development regulations have become known—is of the greatest importance to the future well being of rural areas in general. I assure my hon. Friend that input from farming organisations, including the Tenant Farmers Association, has been invaluable in refining the package.
We have listened carefully to the views of all parts of the farming industry, and other rural interests, in weighing the various options and determining how best to use the available funding. The rural development regulations mark an important new step towards supporting people rather than products, and a further move towards compensating farmers not only for their production but for their additional contribution to society, particularly as guardians of the rural landscape, to biodiversity and nature conservation. I think that that is the right way in which to reform the common agricultural policy—a reform that must come.
My hon. Friend raised a number of points. I understood his point about retirement. Like me, he will have heard the Minister make clear his support for the idea of applying the rural development regulations to retirement schemes. However, when the options were considered, making the scheme work proved enormously difficult. There was the issue of value for money and the problem of achieving the desired end; there was also the question of who would qualify, and the potential divisiveness of such a scheme in the farming sector. Given all those difficulties, it was hard to produce a workable scheme meeting the requirements that we would want, and bodies such as the Tenant Farmers Association would want. Given that people must think ahead, my right hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that it is not possible to include a retirement option. That is the fairest and most honest thing that can be said.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about potential restrictions in relation to tenancy agreements in both the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 and the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. I have encountered the issue when I have spoken to representatives of the Tenants Farmers Association, particularly through the ministerial consultation panels that we have set up on a regional basis. I meet those panels regularly, and it seems to me that there are potential problems.
Issues relating to farm business tenancies must be negotiated between landlord and tenant. I am aware of concern that some of the tenancies are shorter than the five-year minimum that would apply to agri-environmental schemes. That makes sense to neither the tenant nor the landowner. We have discussed the matter
806

with landowners' representatives such as the Country Landowners Association, and they agree entirely. They think that it is in the landowners' interests to work with tenants, and to give them maximum flexibility in relation to what they can do within their tenancy agreements.
I genuinely believe that the CLA advocates that. When we last discussed the matter, we discussed the possibility of a joint approach to emphasise the desirability of securing flexibility within the terms of the 1995 Act. I am aware that there is some concern about the workings of the 1986 Act, and about the possibility of disadvantage to tenants who want the possibility of more diversity on their holdings. I am prepared to consider the matter, but, as I think that it should be considered in detail, I shall—following my hon. Friend's representations—discuss it with officials and write to my hon. Friend in detail telling him whether action needs to be taken and what action would be appropriate.
We recognise the particular needs of hill farmers. There has been a separate consultation exercise on successors to the hill livestock compensatory allowance. I know that the Tenant Farmers Association has concerns about that, but we must move towards an "area" basis for support under the HLCA successor schemes. We in the Ministry have presented a compromise to the various interest groups, bearing in mind the need for viable business, the concerns of environmental groups about upland management, and the question of how to make a workable scheme. Representations that we receive will be taken into account.
One of the great strengths of the package announced today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that a significant sum of money will go into article 33 measures on rural diversification. That can support measures of the type that my hon. Friend has mentioned, including co-operation, marketing and producer groups. I am glad that that opportunity is being significantly financed, and hope that progress can be made.
My hon. Friend referred to the role that county council smallholdings can play in making suitable opportunities available to new entrants. We recognise the importance of that role, and I congratulate those authorities that have adopted positive policies for the continuance of their estates.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned a potential conflict in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I may be wrong, but I believe that he was referring to policies introduced a few years ago that encouraged local authorities to dispose of their estates because they could keep more capital. That system has ended and the damaging inducement has been taken away.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we need opportunities for tenants to move on from their farms, and we should encourage county farm authorities to be more forward looking, offering progressive estate structures that make way at the bottom of the ladder for newcomers. I should be only too pleased to consider that idea, and to look into opportunities for farm diversification that can make businesses more viable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised many important points. He rightly said that a review is due on the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, which will provide

807
an opportunity to reconsider those points and to hear what the tenants associations have to say. We shall see then whether we can meet tenants' requirements.
The farms business tenancy provides the flexibility that tenants need, but recognition is also required of changing trends in agriculture. Tenant farmers need to be able to diversify, and they should not be prevented from
808
becoming involved in a range of businesses important to their viability. We shall address that issue, and I shall write further to my hon. Friend on some of the points that he has made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

BBC World and World Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have commenced the proceedings in this Chamber dead on 10 o'clock. On a matter of personal interest, why do we begin deliberation and debate without prayers? I do not want to take up a great deal of time, but I would like to put on record that we are breaking a tradition that goes back to 1558. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the commencement of parliamentary proceedings in the House of Commons, by having prayers at the start of every sitting.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Prayers will be said at the normal time of 2.30 pm in the Chamber of the House of Commons, and there is therefore no break with tradition. My colleague in the Chair, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), gave a ruling on this matter in which he made it clear that, if hon. Members have any queries, they should be taken up with the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.
10.1 am
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have an opportunity to raise this important issue, which is of great concern to public policy.
Like many hon. Members, I attended the lobby a few weeks ago that drew our attention to the implications of the decision by the BBC to discontinue the broadcasting of current affairs comment and analysis on the BBC World television service. The main thrust of my remarks today will be about BBC World television, although I will allude to the BBC World Service for comparison and example.
BBC World television was launched in 1991. At that time, the BBC wanted to run a television service along the lines of BBC World Service radio provision. This debate is a throwback to Mrs. Thatcher, as she was then known. She was hostile to the World Service, and cut its budget; she was also completely opposed to the BBC launching a TV channel internationally. She said that the channel had to be commercial, or that there should be no channel at all. On that basis, the BBC, anxious to respond to the challenge of Cable News Network—CNN—decided to set up a commercial channel. It started in the far east, and has now extended its coverage to all major parts of the world. The problem with that, as the Minister will be aware, is that one cannot run a world-class, worldwide television broadcasting service on buttons. Last year, the BBC World television service lost £15.6 million. As a result, the management of the BBC has decided to cut its losses by removing in-depth current affairs comment and analysis from its programming.
164WH
Many hon. Members will find that an astonishing decision, because if the BBC has a unique selling point—if the BBC means anything in the world—it is its world-quality comment and analysis in the English language, which are trusted and seen to be objective. A BBC World channel without those does not merit the description of meeting the BBC's international standard and aspiration.
Part of the problem is that the BBC is between director generals, and it is hard for it to focus on the point of decision. There is no doubt that the BBC is split internally over this decision. I have received strong representations from people who insist that their interest is not simply as programme makers being deprived of the opportunity to ply their craft, but as people who feel that something very valuable is being removed from the service. The BBC says that it wants to concentrate the service on entertainment and sport.
The NATO spokesman, Jamie Shea, said at the briefing a few weeks ago that there was no shortage of television channels offering entertainment and sport—in fact, that there was a glut of them; they were everywhere. Although such an option may be more commercial, there is a conflict between commercial pressure and public policy interest, which must be resolved as a matter of urgency, in the national interest—and in Britain's interest abroad—and not in the interest of short-term accountancy pressures in the organisation of the BBC.
It is worth stating that Sky—perhaps not a major competitor, but working in the same sphere—has made it clear how important it believes news to be, and that it never expects news to make a profit. A Sky news spokesman said:
"The news is a key strategic asset within Sky, as it adds a lot of kudos and authority. We see it as a public service first and foremost."
That is the ethic of Sky, for heaven's sake. We must question whether the BBC shares it—which is shameful. My honest view is that the BBC not only shares that ethic but can exceed it. However, it finds itself unable to do so in the current circumstances.
It is also worth recording the scale of success achieved by BBC World. It is estimated to reach 150 million homes in nearly 200 countries and territories. It has its own website and has made a feature of current affairs and analysis. If one visits the BBC World website, and asks for information for advertisers on this commercial channel, one finds key facts about BBC World, apart from its penetration. Item 3 states:
"BBC World provides news, business and weather 24 hours a day, plus the best of the BBC's current affairs, documentary and lifestyle programming."
Item 5 states:
"BBC World provides unmatched, impartial, in-depth analysis of breaking news, as well as looking at the stories behind the news and important live events—explaining not only what is happening but why."
That is BBC World today, but that will not be BBC World in six months' time if the cuts go ahead. That the BBC management is about to withdraw two of the key claims on the website, allowing people to commit to advertising on the basis of such assurances, is a slight breach of undertaking.
The specific success and distinctive character of the BBC mean that it reaches where comparable and competitive channels choose not to go. It has

165WH
distinguished itself in the coverage of Kosovo—from a European rather than an American perspective—of East Timor, of the Indian general election and of the coup in Pakistan. There were 4,000 hits on the BBC World website within an hour of the first international broadcast by the new leader of Pakistan. It has also given coverage in sub-Saharan Africa. At the briefing a few weeks ago, a representative from Médecins Sans Frontières said that, without the attention that BBC World gives to those theatres, its work would not necessarily reach the same proportion of opinion-formers and supporters to enable it to continue effectively. We are talking about a serious loss of coverage, because without BBC World's distinguished coverage in such areas, who else would offer it? How else would the world get to know what was going on?
The NATO spokesman, Jamie Shea, who became famous as a result of his role commenting on the war in Kosovo, said:
"Very frequently, where once in a foreign ministry I would see CNN on all day, now I see BBC World, including the State Department and the White House in the United States, and I can't think of a higher accolade than that."
But will it still be switched on in six months' time if this in-depth analysis, which the State Department does not feel that it can get from other sources, is withdrawn from BBC World?
I shall not detain hon. Members with a string of comments. I shall simply say that there are many testimonials from people who have been directly affected by the coverage of their area, their conflict and their problems. East Timor is a case in point. A viewer in Portugal described BBC World as having shown the world, throughout the crisis, what the United Nations and the USA pretended did not exist, and urged the service not to stop doing so until Indonesia stopped. Such comments are extremely valuable, and should not be discounted lightly.
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned CNN. What is his view of the move by CNN and MSNBC—the Microsoft and NBC Network—into the World Service's traditional domain, and, in particular, their development of new services in new languages? Is that a threat to the first class world service of the BBC?
Mr. Bruce: It may be a threat, but the subject of the debate is the threat from inside the BBC. If the BBC pulls out of core services when other channels are expanding into them, it will not find it easy to return and re-establish itself in a few years' time—if that is its plan—when the channel has become commercially viable. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Lady's intervention, which is that the BBC's decision is very poorly timed.
When John Tusa was head of the BBC World Service, there was an organised campaign to persuade the Government to reverse the cuts that were imposed. That was only partially successful—the service still suffered significant reductions—and I give total credit to the Government for reinstating the funding in the comprehensive spending review. Although BBC World would argue, given the range of challenges that it has to
166WH
meet, that it is operating on a tight budget, at least it is now broadly protected. That is in contrast to the cuts under latter Conservative Governments.
BBC World receives not a penny of public subsidy—its losses are funded by the BBC—whereas the BBC World Service received £161.5 million in 1998–99, directly from the Foreign Office grant. That is welcome and important, and, under the comprehensive spending review, it will receive an additional £44 million over the next three years. That has enabled the World Service to notch up 143 million listeners, which means it is the most successful international world broadcaster. All of us are proud of that, and the Government recognise and support it. If the Government acknowledge the importance of the World Service as part of foreign policy, should they not explain why the BBC World television service—even though it reaches a different mix of viewers—should be denied even a penny of support? I do not mind whether the money comes from the Foreign Office, the BBC or a commercial partnership; I mind if the service is cut, and if the Government stand back and allow that to happen. I challenge the Minister to assure us that that is not the Government's intention.
I have had discussions with the BBC, and was told the accountancy reasons behind the decision, which are understandable but not acceptable. Several questions arise as a result. BBC World is not a trading corporation, but is supported by BBC Worldwide, which is such a corporation. Therefore, why should BBC internal management not continue to fund the losses if it chooses?
Questions have been raised about the extent to which the BBC's cross-subsidising might constitute unfair competition. The evidence does not suggest that, however, as a commercial arm of the BBC is involved. Could not the Foreign Office offer ring-fenced funding for current affairs and analysis programmes that are not on commercial channels?
In the long term, a BBC World television service that is too dependent on commercial advertising might be open to commercial pressure, which could compromise independence. That could be important on a controverisal international issue, such as genetically modified foods. Monsanto might choose to offer advertising contracts worth several million pounds to the BBC in order to gain leverage in coverage of its activities. It would be more likely, however, that advertisers would withdraw or threaten to withdraw if they felt that the BBC had hit a raw nerve.
Sir Robert Smith: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. Even if there is no threat, there is a risk that the viewer will perceive one. I found it strange that a business programme was sponsored by the Welsh Development Agency. It provoked the nagging doubt that people might question impartiality.
Mr. Bruce: That is true, although I am more concerned about solutions. I am exploring a number of possible avenues and problems. If I had my way, the Government would argue that the BBC World television service was a proper complement to the BBC World Service, and should be funded as the BBC originally wanted.

167WH
As time is critical, my main concern is to find a solution to the short-term problem and to ensure that analysis and comment continues; the long-term solution can be addressed on a more relaxed time scale. The figures that we are considering are extremely small—Sir Michael Alexander commented that it was extraordinary that the core component and fundamental justification for BBC World would be cut for the sake of £5 million. Do the Government accept that the future of comment and analysis on BBC World is key to the national interest?
Some slightly defensive commentators in the BBC say, "We hope you will do something, but we know that there are no votes in it." I do not accept that there are no votes in the issue, for two reasons. First, the British travel quite a lot, and those who have encountered BBC World and who can choose it against any of its competitors know that it is of superior quality. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) pointed out, other broadcasters are starting to try to compete, and we may receive representations from British travellers if they feel that the quality of the service is falling. The Minister might want to reflect on the fact that, if the decisions are taken in April, the complaints will be made in the run-up to the next election.
Secondly, Ministers, Governments, business people and the wider public are proud of the reputation of the BBC across the world. The BBC stands for reliability, objectivity, trustworthiness and in-depth comment and analysis. That has served the British interest extremely well, and it would be extraordinary if we were to surrender our English language comment to interior competitors.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, those American-oriented competing channels will pursue the English language interest as determined by the Americans. I am not anti-American, but I am pro-British; I support our role in the English-speaking world. We must match the Americans in the English-speaking world, because we play our role so much better.
In a speech on 22 November, the Prime Minister said that he had a vision of Britain as
"a power at the crux of alliances such as the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the European Union—engaged, open and dynamic, a partner and, where possible a leader in areas and influence".
How on earth will that be achieved if BBC World is not there to provide such things? I hope that the Prime Minister will agree on reflection that £5 million is not a lot to pay to support that noble aspiration.
At the briefing, Sir Michael Alexander said:
"No one should be surprised if CNN ignores meetings in which UK and European interests are foremost; crises in which UK and European interests are primarily at issue; conflicts in which European forces are more important than those of the Americans."
That is what we are up against. A worldwide English language service that is generated in Britain, and which does not promote British propaganda but examines the world from the perspective of Britain and the English language, is competing with a growing number of channels with far greater commercial backing than the BBC, which are determined to dominate the airways and promote a different agenda to a different English-speaking world with different priorities.
168WH
I am glad that a Foreign Office Minister is replying to this debate; that is entirely appropriate. I hope that he will accept that this is a serious and important public policy issue. I am also glad that the Government recognise the value of the radio arm of the World Service, and have supported it properly and adequately. However, I shall be disappointed if they stand back and allow BBC World television to become something far less than it aspires to be, should be, and is capable of being, given the resources at our disposal.
10.22 am
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I speak in support of BBC World television, although not uncritically. As a consumer of that service, I have often felt frustrated by the lack of sufficient coverage of United Kingdom domestic politics. That is a problem not only for those of us who travel abroad, but for residents and citizens of countries with a rapacious appetite for United Kingdom political news. Having said that, I value the service, and it is one on which we can build, so I am deeply concerned by the BBC's proposed short-term decision-making cuts.
I may be doing the Minister an injustice, but I predict that his briefing notes will counsel that he tell this Chamber that the Government sympathise with the broad thrust of what is said this morning, but that the decision is a commercial one, to be taken exclusively by the BBC. Each time that he says that, I shall say "Gong!", like the gong that used to be struck on the television programme "Take your Pick", which was hosted by Michael Miles. I ask the Minister to pull back from that brief and say that he, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) urged so eloquently.
Although I regret the commercial dimension, which is a legacy of the dogmatic attitude of Margaret Thatcher, I should say that other parts of government become involved in commercial considerations. The Government ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology. The Prime Minister himself has trespassed into the question of genetically modified foods. The Government have a hands-on involvement in privately owned aerospace industries, and in defence procurement. The Government need to protect the United Kingdom's wider commercial interests and our capacity to pack a punch on the world stage. For power projection and our longer-term commercial interests, this matter is one in which the Government and, indeed, the Prime Minister, should be involved. If they take the opposite view, the decision will be impossible to reverse and the loss will be permanent.
To use an historic analogy, as Minister of Technology, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) saved the British regional jet. That was a critical decision, and he has been proven right. In broadcasting and political terms, if the Government use their good offices to intervene with the BBC, or to find interim finance, they will be making a comparably wise decision on behalf of the UK.
We are at a critical moment in world history. We and our allies are desperately trying to build civil societies in a number of fragile parts of the world. I am thinking in particular of the Russian Federation, where young

169WH
people hunger to learn about British society, our parliamentary traditions, our free media, and all aspects of the English language. That is reflected in other parts of the world, particularly in those for which the Minister has responsibility, such as west Africa.
Also, of course, there are some 80 million people in the principal European Union applicant countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Estonia. If we build our bridges now, we shall reap long-term political advantages in European Councils, but we are not doing enough in that regard. I regret to say that the Prime Minister has not visited one of those countries, which is somewhat indicative of our laid-back attitude. That could be offset in a small way if the Government were to demonstrate commitment towards those people, who are our potential political allies and love our common language.
The hon. Member for Gordon has rightly pointed out that the problems associated with BBC World are a legacy of Margaret Thatcher's dogma, but we have to live with them. BBC Worldwide needs BBC World to generate advertising revenue. Part of the problem is the Asia crisis, which reduced revenue, but here there is a potential gilt-edged investment. As the global economy inexorably expands, there will be tremendous scope for pan-world advertising. At some stage, BBC World will be capable of making a profit—we must simply hang on in there. According to the BBC's own conservative commercial projections, that stage will be reached in approximately eight years. I think that it may be reached sooner, but eight years is in any case a short time in which to bridge the financial gap. If we do not bridge it, the political, economic and cultural loss will be enormous.
I emphasise that the substitution of "fun" programmes for the quality analysis programmes that the present structure provides will not meet people's needs, particularly those in central and eastern Europe, who want to learn and understand the political, economic and business language that is inherent in such programmes.
We should also pause and take note of what the hon. Member for Gordon said about BBC World radio, which is an extremely important, highly valued service, with a tremendous reputation. I realised only recently BBC radio's inherent technological difficulties in reaching various parts of the world; the potential for BBC World television is limitless because of satellite technology.
The Minister of State should note that the Foreign Affairs Committee was horrified to realise that, for instance, large parts of the Russian Federation cannot receive BBC radio. This weekend, my wife and I were in Krakov in Poland—at the heart of Europe—and we could not receive BBC radio. Perhaps we did not properly understand the radio dials, but BBC radio was not easily accessible. However, television demonstrably is. The Government should seize this great opportunity to advance the interests of the United Kingdom.
What can the Government do? The hon. Member for Gordon suggested that they should consider bridging the financial gap, and I support him in that. At the highest level—the Foreign Secretary or the Prime
170WH
Minister should be involved—the Government should, at the very least, call in BBC representatives to bang heads together and use their good offices to persuade the BBC of its long-term commercial interests and its duty to the United Kingdom. I might be doing the Foreign Secretary an injustice, but I am concerned by reports that, when the issue was put to him, he expressed sympathy—that will be in the Minister's brief—but said that funding should not come from his Department's budget. There is the rub. It would be a tragedy if a tranche of money to bridge the gap could not be found from the estimates for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or from other sources.
I hope that the Prime Minister will personally addresss that matter. I told the Minister before the debate that I had raised the matter with the Prime Minister at an informal private meeting last Wednesday week. To be fair, I should say that the Prime Minister made no commitment, but he said that he would consider it. I then wrote to him; he would have received that letter on 29 November. So far as I am aware, and despite our interest in joined-up government, I am not sure whether the Foreign Office knows that No. 10 is involved. That is another compelling reason why the Minister should disregard his brief, and tell us that he will trot along to see his chief later today to discuss the matter with him.
The Prime Minister should be reminded that the people in Pristina who turned out to acclaim him knew him not from CNN, but from BBC World television. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, if we are to reach the goal of being a pivotal power that the Prime Minister spelled out in his Mansion House speech, we must ensure that the United Kingdom's valuable, but relatively cheap, high-quality flagship projects, such as the British Council, BBC radio and BBC television, should be buttressed, supported and encouraged by the Government.
10.34 am
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): The BBC mark is one of the nation's most tremendous marks overseas. Everyone accepts that it has enabled us to retain our broadcasting reputation abroad and to punch above our weight both diplomatically and politically. In other words, it is a priceless asset in both radio and television. The future of BBC World is therefore a matter not simply for the BBC or for its advertisers, but for everyone. Indeed, it is a matter for the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers of State, because, whether the Government like it or not, a cut in BBC World will be seen as a foreign policy decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to the reach of BBC World Service and BBC World television. BBC World Service started in 1932 and now reaches 200 million homes. That is a tremendous achievement. The BBC is regarded internationally as superior to all other international broadcasters. That reflects wonderfully on the country's reputation abroad. BBC World Service has high ratings for trustworthiness and quality, and it is doing well with modern media: it is accessed more than 50 million times a month on the internet.
You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am interweaving BBC World Service and BBC World. That is because they are two sides of the same coin: they are

171WH
the face of the country abroad; they are provided by the same organisation; and they have the same reasons for existence. The fact that they are separately funded—one through Foreign Office grant in aid and the other by advertising revenue—is, as other hon. Members have already said, an historic accident. I shall return to that point later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said, BBC World television now reaches 160 million homes in nearly 200 countries and territories. It reaches 50 per cent. of United States households with televison sets—even in CNN's home nation, BBC World is making great strides. I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that BBC World is not perfect, I, too, have watched it when abroad: one can see the joins. Nevertheless, it is a very good product for the amount of money spent on it, so it is an asset that should not be easily and lightly thrown away. One should not spoil a ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.
BBC World losses amounted to £16 million last year. I know that one can lose £16 million a year quite easily: for example, the Treasury is spending £113 million on refurbishing its building in Whitehall. I do not know how many BBC World years that would buy—my arithmetic is not quite perfect—but it seems that money is available for pet projects. I suggest that it is more important for BBC World to be funded than it is for the Treasury to be refurbished—and it is in the UK's interests, both internationally and domestically.
The loss has been reduced by 36 per cent. and advertising revenues have increased by 100 per cent. since September last year. It took 12 years for CNN to turn a profit, so it is unrealistic to expect BBC World to break even soon. A further question is whether cutting back will help the service to meet its commercial targets, or whether it will make it less attractive to advertisers. Advertisers use BBC World because they want to be associated with the BBC's good qualities, but if BBC World becomes a third rate version of CNN, advertisers will ask whether it is worth using it.
A similar argument was made for cutting back the railways in the Beeching years. It was said that, if one cut unprofitable railway lines, the lines that were left would be profitable and that—hey presto—the railways would go into profit. However, once the branch lines were cut, it was discovered that passengers could not get to the terminuses of the profitable lines, which then became unprofitable. Sometimes, financial equations that appear to work do not make sense in practice. The best way to attract advertising revenue is to produce a quality product that attracts a premium in the market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for Thurrock referred to the artificial division that took place in 1986 in the funding of the BBC World Service. That funding was long established as grant in aid from the Foreign Office, but the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, insisted that it receive public funding over her dead body. A number of the former Prime Minister's dogmas and prejudices have subsequently been discredited, and there is no reason to believe that we need to hold on to them. We might even lose that inheritance entirely as we move into the 21st century.
What is the reason for insisting that BBC World should be commercial? Those who wish to defend the status quo must answer that question. The former Prime
172WH
Minister did so because of her unnecessary and illogical hatred of the BBC, but she also hated public services generally and wanted to make them commercially oriented and, as far as possible, not dependent on public funding. That was her agenda. It is not my party's agenda, and I do not believe that it is the Government's. We need to revisit that debate, and say why BBC World should not be publicly funded. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon put the matter in a nutshell when he said that, if there is a case for the BBC World Service to receive grant in aid in recognition of its value overseas, how can it be different for television? It is logical for both or neither to be commercially funded. The present position makes no sense.
Another problem arose back in 1994 when John Birt, Director General of the BBC, split BBC World from the BBC World Service and combined it with BBC Worldwide. That also makes no sense. The outlets, countries and people are the same, as are the news gatherers—the journalists. The fact that one service can be heard on the airwaves, and the other seen on television, is an artificial distinction. The BBC should consider carefully whether it would be more efficient for BBC World and the BBC World Service to be reunited.
BBC World performed commendably well on a shoestring during its initial years. It was asked to compete in a top-class race against CNN and others while having to carry a loaded rucksack. That situation was inherited by the Government and current BBC management. Instead of trying to remove that rucksack, allowing BBC World to flourish, adding extra weight is proposed, by removing some of its credibility and world reputation. We cannot expect BBC World to retain its reputation if cuts are made to essential parts of it, such as current affairs and news. International viewers will not be fooled for ever.
The BBC said that it is not possible to transfer resources from its domestic operations to BBC World. Is that correct? If so, it is wrong in principle. BBC News 24 spent more than £50 million in 1998–99. Perhaps hon. Members will forgive me for suggesting again that News 24 is so called because of the number of its viewers. Such spending is an extraordinary waste of money given that BBC World performs so much better and with greater impact on a larger audience.
Mr. Malcom Bruce: Does my hon. Friend find it eccentric that the BBC is touting around the House for support for additional charges to fund its digital channels when it is discontinuing the news service on BBC World for the sake of £5 million?
Mr. Baker: I absolutely agree. The BBC should answer hon. Members' questions on BBC World and BBC World Service before they ask for more money for ephemeral projects that could be funded in other ways. I hope that that will happen when the Government reply to the Davies report.
The BBC World Service and BBC World should be linked again and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon suggested, BBC World should qualify for grant in aid. There should be a ring-fenced arrangement, at least for current affairs and news, so that the independence, financial stability and full planning of BBC World can be guaranteed. BBC World should be

173WH
given a free rein and proper support to perform well. That would not cost a fortune and it would be money well spent, which would be more than repaid by the maintenance of the United Kingdom's interest in the world. It is a foreign policy issue and I hope that the Minister wil recognise that in his response.
10.44 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be brief, as always. These are important matters, in which I have an interest to declare. I was a chair of the briefing, which was conducted not by representatives of the BBC's management, which at times of difficulty affect the stance of the pre-emptive cringe, deflecting blows that have not yet been aimed, but by the workers at the coal face and people such as Jamie Shea, who know full well the importance of BBC World in the world. I also worked for the BBC for 30 years, so I should know a little whereof I speak.
It is interesting, and says a lot about the service, that it has drawn the hostility of both Mr. Ted Turner and Mr. Rupert Murdoch—two of the great predators of our time. They are threatened by its quality, truthfulness and commitment to values other than the merely commercial. I was present at the birth of BBC World; there was a long gestation of around eight years before the fragile infant was finally delivered. The infant has grown in strength and has become one the BBC's unsung success stories. As Jamie Shea testified, at times of international crisis, the world now turns to the BBC. That was certainly so during the Kosovo crisis, when millions of people, especially in the Balkans, depended on what the BBC was telling them.
The BBC is necessary for a number of reasons, one being the nature of ITN—[Interruption.] I withdraw that. I mean CNN, with apologies to my former rivals. The BBC cannot be a third-rate CNN because CNN is already a third-rate CNN. It is insular and ignorant. I remember when it failed to distinguish between the Irish Republican Army and the army of the Irish Republic. Hon. Members will know that that is no slight distinction. It is Americocentric and nothing in the world matters to it except the United States and its interests in a way that the BBC is not Anglocentric. The BBC takes a wider view of the world and its responsibilities to the world, its domestic and foreign audience and the truth.
Mention has been made of News 24. It is astonishing the the BBC should celebrate 75 years in broadcasting with the greatest waste of money in all that time—£30 million blown away on that invisible service, which is viewed by 0.1 per cent. of the population and dilutes the BBC's journalism. I know what effect it has on people in the field who are required to devote their energies to broadcasting to a non-existent audience when there is a huge audience and an even greater potential audience for BBC World. The comment and analysis function must not be stripped from BBC World.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BBC might serve two purposes if it withdrew
174WH
News 24 and allowed the British public to see BBC World and to understand the quality that it is missing at home?
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The British public would be extremely well served if that were to happen.
BBC World must not be allowed to become a rip and read service, thereby emulating some of the worst features of its main American rival. Reference has been made to a common Foreign Office phrase—the United Kingdom's ability to punch above its weight. Two institutions are able to do that. One is the armed forces, with their singular quality and effectiveness, and the other is British broadcasting abroad, by which we mean, almost exclusively, the BBC.
Hon. Members may remember that, when the new Government came to power, they set up Panel 2000 to project Britain abroad—Britain as it is. I was a member of that panel—I do not know whether it still exists—and remember that our most effective instrument for projecting this country, its values and a concept of truthful broadcasting that people can believe was the BBC, in both radio and television. I make no distinction between those services because, as the radio's audience declines and fewer people listen on short-wave, more people are tuning in to television. I urge the Minister to think carefully about that.
I cannot think of a more important area in which the expenditure of a relatively small amount of money would have a greater effect. It would do the country good, and the world good, to keep BBC World broadcasting truthfully and effectively as a beacon of light and truth.
10.50 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: First, I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is your first time in the Chair in this Chamber, and on behalf of all hon. Members present, I welcome you. It is good to call you Madam Deputy Speaker.
At the instigation of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), we have so far had an interesting albeit short debate. I am surprised that so few people have participated in a debate on such a serious subject as BBC World and the BBC World Service. I hope that that will not be reflected in all the debates in this Chamber. I made my personal views known earlier about the efficacy of this second modern Chamber—or, as I have been calling it, the secondary modern Chamber. I am sad that there are not more hon. Members from all parties present for this important subject.
I share the views of many people in the world in that, when I have travelled in far-flung places, I have turned to the BBC for news, information, security and comfort. I have not been in war-torn regions, as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has been, but I have worked in some inhospitable places, such as Moscow soon after the iron curtain came down, where it was impossible to receive any information. At times, we would sit for five hours trying to dial a number outside Moscow, just to send a telex. However, we could turn on the radio and listen to the BBC; to hear the chimes of Big Ben was a great comfort to me and many others, not only the British in our community.

175WH
The BBC World Service is a great source of pride. It broadcasts in 44 languages. Since 1979, its audience has grown from about 75 million to more than 133 million, which is twice the audience of its nearest competitor, The Voice of America. I agree with the hon. Member for Tatton about the quality of some of the broadcasting that we receive around the world, which has its roots in America. The standard and accuracy of reporting and the one-sided view that is put across is damaging to those who listen to such broadcasts, whereas with the BBC there is a true feeling of independence and objectivity, which we all hope will be maintained. The Tories have come in for some criticism in this debate.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Only Mrs. Thatcher.
Mrs. Gillan: When I last looked, she was a Conservative. Yes, Mrs. Thatcher has come in for some criticism. But when the Tories were in government, we increased spending on the World Service by 53 per cent. in real terms. That record stands extremely well, particularly against the record of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979, when fewer languages were broadcast and there was no real-terms increase in the funding that was given to the World Service.
I am disturbed about the funding of the BBC World Service and I asked the House of Commons Library for some relevant information. The figures that I obtained show the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant in aid for broadcasting and, given that a Foreign Office Minister is replying to the debate on behalf of the Government, it is apposite that I share the information that I received. The Library said that the World Service
"receives Government money for its monitoring services. Prior to 1997–98 this was in the form of grants from the FCO and Ministry of Defence. From 1997–98 all official users of BBC Monitoring pay a subscription charge. The total Government support to the monitoring service remains broadly the same (£18.8 million in 1997–98 compared with £19.1 million in 1996–97) but the FCO contribution has fallen."
In 1996–97, the contribution fell in real terms by 7.6 per cent. and, from 1997–98, it fell in real terms by 4.4 per cent. Although expenditure in 2001–02 is planned to be higher in real terms than it was in 1997–98, during the run-up to the general election, the plans show real terms decreases in 2000–01 and 2001–02. I see that the Minister is making a note of the Library's figures and I hope that he will have a good explanation for such substantial drops in the grant in aid.
Mr. Bruce: I understand from my briefing that the monitoring service made a profit of £1.3 million, which might explain why the Government are withdrawing funding. That is understandable, but it also demonstrates the potential for money from that source to be rediverted to make up the BBC World Service deficit. The hon. Lady is making a telling point, to which it would be interesting to hear the Minister's reply. If the BBC can make a profit, is it not logical that it could go towards filling that hole?
Mrs. Gillan: I am not known to hunt in pairs with Liberal Democrats, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Minister certainly has some serious questions to answer.
176WH
I draw the Minister's attention to the fifth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Foreign and Commonwealth Office resources dated 22 June 1999. The section on the BBC World Service budget in paragraph 30 of the report raises a serious point. The Committee stated:
"The World Service is an invaluable asset to the United Kingdom. The World Service is facing increasing competition and is required to keep pace with changing technology. On its present and projected budget it will fail to meet both. We recommend the FCO ensures that the World Service is adequately financed to respond to these challenges, with its funding being increased at least to the level in real terms that was achieved in the 1993–94 and 1995–96 period."
That was a serious indictment from the Foreign Affairs Committee, which, I believe, has a Government majority. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is nodding his head and he was a member of that Committee. The Minister must tell us what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is doing about the Committee's recommendation. We hear rumours about the Chancellor of the Exchequer storing up billions of pounds. We are debating one of our most powerful diplomatic tools in the globe and, for the sake of a small amount of money, we could preserve not only a British institution, but a world institution.
There was another telling section in that same report. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Gordon, I referred to the double jeopardy of increased investment in competition by second-rate American broadcasting outfits. There is also a triple jeopardy, because of the diminution of one of our other world-class organisations, the British Council. Hon. Members are nodding; we may even have cross-party consensus in this new Chamber.
The Committee makes a serious point in paragraph 42 of that report, stating:
"We believe that the British Council is seriously underfunded and that the promotion of Britain's language, education and culture, in which the British Council has a key role to play, is of enormous benefit to the UK. The British Council's target of £160 million in real terms by 2002–03 represents only a 10 per cent. increase in real terms on the level achieved in the early to mid 1990s"—
under Conservative Governments. It continues:
"We consider that an increase of such a magnitude is both affordable and fully justified, and we recommend it to the FCO."
I want to know what is going on at the Foreign Office. It seems that British institutions that have provided a first-class service around the world for many moons are being starved of funds by a mean Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is not only Conservative Members, but hon. Members from all parties who believe that the Minister must answer some serious questions. The Minister has a long time in which to respond to the many issues that have been raised.
Mr. Baker: Before the hon. Lady ends her speech, will she clarify whether it is Conservative policy for BBC World to benefit from grant in aid in the way in which the BBC World Service does?
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman does not believe that I am as green as I am cabbage-looking. I do not intend to make Conservative policy on the hoof in an annexe to Westminster Hall. However, I can tell him

177WH
that the Conservative party, when in government, put its money where its mouth was and supported the BBC World Service. Any future Conservative Government will do so, and they will support the British Council. The current Government have effectively withdrawn funds from both organisations. I hope that the Minister will now furnish us with a suitable explanation.
11.1 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I, too, welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate you on your accession to that title, which is well deserved in this Chamber at least—[Interruption.] I should like you to have that title in all Chambers, but that is out of personal respect.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has given me the opportunity to speak on behalf of one of Britain's finest national assets—the BBC. I acknowledge his passion for the BBC, and that expressed by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Tatton (Mr. Bell), whose esteemed professional career in the BBC I acknowledge. Regrettably, I am not tempted to abandon my brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock invited me to do. I also acknowledge the statements in support of the BBC made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
I shall begin by drawing a distinction between the BBC World Service, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds through grant in aid, and BBC World television—I pause for the gong—which is a commercial operation funded by subscription and advertising.
I shall start with the BBC World Service, because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds it. The World Service aims to be the world's leading international broadcaster. As others have acknowledged, its audience reach—143 million people—is the highest ever. No less a figure than Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, said last year that it is a service to the world as a whole and is perhaps Britain's greatest gift to the world this century.
The Government are fully committed to a bright future for the World Service. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, that was why last year we announced an additional £44 million in grant in aid to the World Service for the three years 1999–2002. I commend the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on her cheek in calling that funding mean, given that the Government that she supported through the 1980s and 1990s progressively attacked the World Service against massive popular opposition, including from within the House.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister confirm that approximately £40 million of that sum went towards building the new transmitter in Oman?
Mr. Hain: The World Service spends the grant in aid that the Foreign Office gives it on improving its services, and one form of the expenditure may well have been that
178WH
transmitter. If so, it would have extended services across the world, and I am sure the hon. Lady would not want to quarrel with any extension of the World Service, which she has spent so much time praising.
Mrs. Gillan: The Minister is most generous in giving way, but as he has half an hour in which to speak, I am sure that he will be grateful to any hon. Member who intervenes. Is he happy that the grant in aid from the Foreign Office to the World Service fell by 7.6 per cent. in 1996–97 and 4.4 per cent. in 1997–98? Will he confirm that those figures, which come from the Library, are correct and that there will be a real-terms decrease for 2000–01 and 2001–02? I see that inspiration has arrived.
Mr. Hain: The first figure that the hon. Lady quotes relates to the last Conservative Government, and I am not happy about it. The second year came within a financial framework that had been set by the last Conservative Government. She does not dispute that we are providing an extra £44 million, which represents a substantial increase in funding for the World Service.
Mr. Mackinlay: Hon. Members obviously applaud that additional funding, but the Minister's brief does not tell him that BBC radio cannot, and never will, reach large parts of the world for which he has personal responsibility in his ministerial portfolio, whereas television will be able to reach those people and provide all the services to which reference has been made this morning. I welcome that money, but a slice of it would be much better directed towards such services so that they reach the folk in respect of whom he has some jurisdiction—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Interventions must be brief, even if we think that we can be generous with the time.
Mr. Hain: I am aware of some things that are not in my brief, and I acknowledge the fact that BBC World does not reach some parts of the world, including some for which I have policy responsibility. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about BBC World, and I shall deal with it. I should like it to reach many more parts of the globe.
Before generously allowing those interventions, I was making the point that the increase in funding that the Government are happily providing is intended to enable the World Service to implement an ambitious strategy of embracing the latest technology. We want to ensure that it remains the most respected and most widely listened to voice in international broadcasting. I am sure that there is unanimity on that in this Chamber.
The World Service faces stern challenges, both competitively and technologically. The speed of change in broadcasting is breathtaking, but I am confident that the World Service will meet those challenges—indeed, it is already doing so. I am delighted that it is exploiting to the full the fast growing medium of the digital age—on-line broadcasting. Internet users throughout the world can listen to the World Service's English programmes live. By embracing that new technology and the distribution opportunities that FM and rebroadcasting offer, the World Service aims to become a leading-edge multimedia broadcaster.

179WH
Some things will not change. Many audiences around the world—tens of millions of people—will remain heavily dependent on the World Service's traditional core radio services for many years to come. The World Service is developing its FM output, but there will be a continuing focus on short-wave delivery. I have seen for myself how dependent many audiences—for example, those in India, which I visited last month—are on the World Service's short-wave broadcasts and will be for some time to come. The World Service is striking exactly the right balance between the old and the new. Its concern for all its listeners will ensure its continued success.
The World Service's programmes will continue to be underpinned by the BBC's core strengths and values: trust, reliability and independence; quality, expertise and relevance; truth, accuracy and impartiality. The hon. Member for Tatton rightly referred to those values as being far superior to those of its rivals because the BBC is a beacon of light and truth.
The World Service is, importantly, editorially and managerially independent of Government, and will remain so. I shall quote the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He said:
"It serves Britain and the world by being independent and, therefore, credible."
He continued:
"What is remarkable is that successive British Governments have understood that."
Mr. Baker: Will the Minister give a straight answer to a key question? Where is the logic in requiring the World Service to be 100 per cent. funded by the FCO, including the real increases to which he referred, while requiring BBC World to be 100 per cent. commercially funded?
Mr. Hain: I am about to give a straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The broadcasting values, which I was describing and which we all agree apply to the BBC World Service, also govern BBC World television. Everybody knows that BBC World is a commercial operation funded by subscription and advertising. The Government do not fund BBC World; it is part of the BBC's commercial arm, and is separate from the World Service. The decision was taken in 1988 that there should be no public funding for the BBC's proposed international television service. That decision has been vindicated by the success of what has followed. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]
We have all been celebrating that success. BBC World is available in 150 million homes across 200 countries, which is a credible and creditable achievement on which the BBC is to be congratulated. As hon. Members have said, BBC World has faced difficulties in recent months, and I share their concern about those difficulties. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not intervene in the BBC's decisions on programme content, and I doubt that hon. Members would invite a Minister to do so; nor do we interfere in scheduling or staffing. I am pleased that the BBC's board of governors, which has both the duty and the means to represent the public interest, has expressed its commitment publicly to the continuance of BBC World television. I have relied on it during my ministerial travels all over the world in recent
180WH
months. It is far superior to CNN—I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Tatton in that respect—and to any other world television service.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Why does the Minister believe that it does not matter if the BBC withdraws from comment and analysis? We are trying to press him on this matter. He is stating the self-evident, but will he say whether the Government, as a matter of policy, are concerned that that aspect of BBC World is about to be discontinued? Do the Government care or not? Will they do anything about it?
Mr. Hain: By definition, the Government care a great deal about all the policies for which they are responsible. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon that it is a matter of concern that the comment and analysis sections of BBC World will disappear. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is well taken. BBC World television reaches where other channels choose not to go. To be fair, I think that it was the hon. Member for Gordon who said that first. Both hon. Members were making the point that BBC World covers issues such as Kosovo, East Timor and other matters of great international concern in a way that is unrivalled by other channels.
The cut in the comment and analysis section of BBC World is based on a programming decision. According to the BBC's chief executive, the market will not bear hour-long analysis programmes, which CNN and Sky do not broadcast. Hon. Members may challenge that view and they are entitled to do so directly to the BBC's chief executive. He says that BBC World will lose market share because people will not wish to—
Mr. Bruce rose—
Mr. Hain: I am just explaining the chief executive's point of view. He says that people will not want to concentrate or continue to watch BBC World, but will turn to its competitors.
Mr. Bruce: I understand that it is the chief executive's view, but the collision between commercial interests and public service broadcasting is exactly the issue that we are debating. The BBC is between a rock and a hard place: either it can be a commercial channel, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, or it can be a public service broadcasting channel, with or without commercial funding. The Minister seems to be evading these fundamental points: do the Government have a view; do they have a policy; do they care; and will they even talk to the BBC about the proposed cuts?
Mr. Hain: I have been explaining the Government's view and I shall continue to do so in more detail.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): My understanding is that the BBC feels that it has to cut the programmes that are specifically produced for BBC World, but that it will fill up the available time slots with in-depth programmes drawn from its home-based news production. We are not getting a clear message from the BBC about whether it is programming replacements from its home-based programmes, or whether it is just cutting out such programmes. That needs to be clarified.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which the board of governors and the BBC's management will, no doubt, want to answer.

181WH
I understand the concens that have been expressed, but there are two points to make. First, licence fee money or other income could be shifted across to BBC World. In the case of licence fee income, it would have to be requested by the BBC by way of a representation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Secondly, we recall that Sky Television's early years were loss-making years and that Rupert Murdoch decided to bear those losses by what became a booming, profitable service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock described it, for the BBC to do the same would be a gilt-edged investment. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that.
The BBC may decide that that is the policy that it wants to pursue. It may be able to treat BBC World as a loss leader, on the basis that it will make substantial profits as its range extends and its reputation is more appreciated across the world.
Mrs. Gillan: I find it rather depressing that the Minister is reading his brief so well. We are talking about cuts, which, if they were made to Radio 4, would affect "Today", "The World at One" and "The World Tonight". More important is the question of what the Minister is going to do about the proposed cuts. Will the Foreign Office give the BBC some support, to encourage it to rescind the cuts that are anticipated in the next two weeks? Will the Minister get off his brief and do what we all want him to do, which is support the BBC, so that when he next meets Xanana Gusmao, the East Timorese leader who has pleaded specificially for the service to continue, he will be able to look him in the face and say, "I saved the World Service"?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important debate and I hope that hon. Members will remember that interventions should be such, interventions, and not secondary speeches.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the BBC will have taken note of the points made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, as I have done. I have expressed my commitment to BBC World television repeatedly. It is an extremely important service, and I want it to be expanded and investment in it to increase. It has expanded very successfully under this regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) pointed out, there is a choice involved. It is not a question of a big black hole appearing in BBC World's services.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Hain: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to come to my point, which answers all the points that have been made. Several hon. Members have sought to draw a parallel between the role of BBC World and the World Service and to argue that that means that the Government should be more financially supportive of BBC World. As I said, BBC World was established as a commercial operation, whereas the World Service is first
182WH
and foremost a public sector, subsidised broadcaster. The Government see no grounds for publicly funding BBC World, which has been hugely successful without public subsidy, from either the licence fee or parliamentary grant in aid. We strongly support its effort to project Britain to a mass international audience.
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Hain: I want to finish this point, after which I shall be happy to respond to any interventions that may come my way.
A fundamental point, which has not so far been acknowledged in the debate, is that the BBC World Service competes in a subsidised market. Its competitors are the Voice of America, Radio France Internationale and Deutsche Welle. In contrast, BBC World television competes in an unsubsidised market against CNN, Sky and ITN. Parliament has never given authority for grants in aid to go to BBC Worldwide.
If the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is allowed to intervene, she must respond to my point or answer my question, although I accept that it is not her responsibility to answer questions. We are proud to give Foreign and Commonwealth Office grants in aid to the BBC World Service, but if we gave them to BBC World television, we should invite immediate and strong commercial protests from, for example, ITN, Sky and CNN. Does the hon. Lady accept that those protests would make it difficult to continue to implement our policy?
Mrs. Gillan: When did the Minister last meet BBC representatives, and when did he discuss this matter with them?
Mr. Hain: I have not met BBC representatives recently to discuss this matter because it has only just arisen. I hope that all hon. Members reflect on my point: does any hon. Member want the Government to adopt a position that would involve attracting immediate commercial and, conceivably, legal challenges to BBC World television from commercial rivals that are direct competitors? Some of those competitors are based in Britain.
Mr. Mackinlay: The message from this debate—I shall paint it on the Minister's eyelids, if necessary—is that the Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister should talk to the BBC about this matter. At the very least, the Minister should give a commitment this morning to do so.
Mr. Hain: I am happy to give that commitment and to convey to BBC World television the strong feelings that hon. Members have expressed about the cuts in this debate. However, in that meeting I shall not seek to intervene in the BBC's management decisions or programme content, because it would be wrong for any Minister to do so. Those matters are the BBC's responsibility, and it is publicly accountable for its decisions.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister has made his position clear. Hon. Members who have already spoken

183WH
may be unhappy about that position, but at least we had a clear, if regrettable, statement of policy. However, the Minister should accept that many people believe that the Foreign Office should have a view on the service's future. The Minister and other Foreign Office Ministers—and, if possible, the Prime Minister, as the hon. Member for Thurrock suggested—should have discussions with the BBC. It had the freedom to take the decision, and it has the freedom to reverse it. Persuasion from the top might help.
Mr. Hain: I shall emphasise several points. First, no hon. Member has so far disputed the essential point that I made about the difference between the BBC World Service, which operates in a context that includes other subsidised services, and BBC World television, which does not operate in such a context.
Secondly, I am happy to report the views that have been expressed during this debate, to engage in discussions with the BBC and to seek an explanation from it of its adopted course of action, which concerns all of us. However, I shall not give a commitment to interfere with the BBC's managerial ability to determine programmes, the way in which it schedules its services, or its programme content or priorities.
Mr. Baker: Do not the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle and Radio France Internationale supply television services? Is the Minister convinced that none of those services receives a public Government subsidy?
Mr. Hain: I have already discussed the comparison, and my point has not been challenged. [Interruption.] No, it has not been challenged. Britain's reputation for diversity and independence in international broadcasting is the envy of the world, and we should do our utmost to preserve that reputation. The continued success of the BBC World Service and of BBC World television is vital to that objective.
I stress the fact that the Government are committed to the continued success of BBC World television. We hope that it will expand its coverage and reach parts of the world that it has not yet reached. We shall support it in that objective, but I shall not interfere in the BBC's detailed programming or managerial decisions. No doubt it will take account—
Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I have dealt generously with interventions.
We shall not interfere in the BBC's detailed decisions, but we want BBC World television to expand. I must stress that we are giving more money to the BBC World Service than has ever been given before, and that we have been much more generous than our Conservative predecessors. We are committed to the service—wherever I go, I support it and I listen to it across the world—and we shall continue to support it. It is vital to Britain's role in the world. The BBC's policy of providing the highest quality broadcasting services in radio and television throughout Britain and the rest of the world must continue to be successful.
11.26 am
Sir Robert Smith: Although the Minister would not give way, there is sufficient time in this debate to emphasise what I was trying to say in my intervention. He said that he was committed to BBC World, but he also said that he should have no influence on or interest in BBC World. He did not show any practical commitment to it; we have heard only soft words.
The Minister said that the 1988 decision had been vindicated, but this debate would tend to suggest that it has not been. He must think carefully about the way in which this country projects itself abroad. BBC World is an integral part of that image. It and the BBC World Service provide the same service, but on different platforms and using different technologies.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly said that the way in which Britain projects itself abroad, through the British Council and the World Service, pays dividends in all sorts of ways, and that many benefits are returned to our economy. If we project our culture, methods and society abroad and engage foreign countries effectively, we can develop industries and other commercial activities on the back of that success.
Mrs. Gillan: In the time that remains, I must stress that the Minister was disingenuous in the way in which he—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken once. We should at least give the Minister the opportunity to say the odd word.
11.29 am
Mr. Hain: I want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), who seemed to suggest that the service was going downhill and collapsing. It now reaches 150 million homes in 200 countries, and BBC World television is going from strength to strength. It does so with the Government's active support and backing.
This morning, we discussed a decision about which hon. Members and I are concerned. BBC managers say that the decision was taken in order to protect the BBC's competitive position in relation to audience reach. Hon. Members are free to disagree, and have disagreed, with that decision.
The idea that the Government are turning their back on BBC World television or radio services is a total travesty. We give more support to the BBC than has been given previously; we back the service in every way that we can, and we shall continue to do so. Our debate will allow BBC managers to take account of the real concerns that have been expressed about BBC World television. No doubt, they will want to reflect on the points that have been made. I shall happily meet them but—if I may be forgiven for putting it this way—I

185WH
cannot accept lectures from the Liberal Democrats, and certainly not from the Conservatives, who spent year after year attacking the BBC's domestic and international services. An unrivalled expansion of the BBC World Service and of BBC World television occurred under the present Government, and we shall continue—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Benzodiazepines
11.30 am
Mr. Phil Woolas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the privilege of opening this debate. This is the first time that I have spoken in the new Chamber. Westminster Hall is not bad as lean-tos go. I shall be grateful for your guidance.
The debate has been given weight by the recent report of the Select Committee on Health on procedures related to adverse clinical incidence and outcomes in medical care. I draw that report and the evidence gathered by the Committee to the attention of hon. Members.
The story of benzodiazepines is of awesome proportions and has been described as a national scandal. The impact is so large that it is too big for Governments, regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry to address head on, so the scandal has been swept under the carpet. My reasons for bringing the debate to the Chamber are numerous and reflect the many strands that weave through the issue.
I was first alerted to the matter when a constituent, Mr. Barry Haslam, wrote to me describing the nightmare in which he has lived as a result of having taken benzodiazepines. He was prescribed Ativan—one of the family of benzodiazepine drugs—for 10 years. As a result, he suffered permanent brain damage, hearing and thyroid problems, fatigue and mood swings, bad circulation, pains in his limbs, slurred speech and memory loss so severe that he cannot remember the past 10 years of his two daughters' growing up: he has lost 10 years of his life. He and other members of the Oldham Tranx support group would have been here today had that been possible.
There are good days between the bad days for the victims of tranquilliser addiction. Like many others of the Victims of Tranquillisers group, Barry is a campaigner. My first impression was that he was a member of the green spidery ink brigade—he bombarded me with letters, documents, quotations and research that he and others had painstakingly eked out of officialdom. However, my constituent is not an obsessive, but a highly intelligent and articulate man with enormous courage and a loving wife who has supported him throughout his campaign. He is a victim of damage to his brain caused by years of heavy dosages of benzodiazepines. There are in this country many thousands of similar cases in which harm has been done, not only to individuals who take the drugs, but to the children of mothers addicted to benzodiazepines while pregnant.
I have permission to cite the case of Mrs. Jackie Gillard, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). Mrs. Gillard wrote to me:
"My life is in the pits. I am unable to go out. I get panic attacks. I go to bed and ask God to let me die in my sleep."
Mrs. Gillard's is an especially difficult situation, as her two sons also appear to be victims of the addiction.
Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given way; I want not to detract from his excellent comments, but to place on record my gratitude that he has mentioned my constituent.

187WH
I have been distressed by the letters that I have received from my constituent on the matter, in which she details not only the impact of the drugs on her, but the effect on her family. She could not even attend her father when he died in hospital, because she could not go out. I ask my hon. Friend for his comments on something else that she has said:
"Life just frightens me every day."
Mr. Woolas: I have received correspondence from hon. Members on both sides of the House describing awful and heart-rending cases such as Mrs. Gillard's from round the country. Recent media interest includes documentaries by the respected "You and Yours" programme on Radio 4 and Tyne Tees Television, and numerous television and radio news reports supported by press reports.
Evidence submitted to the Select Committee by Dr. Peart, national co-ordinator of Victims of Tranquillisers, details the story of benzodiazepines for the past 40 years. In his introduction to that evidence, he says:
"the catalogue of misprescribing, misdiagnosis and mistreatment … has cost this country billions of pounds."
The side effects of benzodiazepines are not widely known, despite publicity. Patients are not given the full information about the side effects and are, therefore, unable to make an informed choice. My constituent, Mr. Haslam, would never have taken the drugs had he known the problems that they cause, despite the difficulties that they were originally intended to cure.
As early as 1980, a report in this country on the use of benzodiazepine-based drugs suggested that they were effective for only 10 days, after which they were no longer effective against the wide variety of problems for which they were originally prescribed. It is now an established fact in the medical profession that it takes only seven to 14 days for addiction to take hold of someone taking benzodiazepines. The problem is twofold: the addiction and the paradoxical side effects.
Guidelines on the prescription of benzo-based drugs suggest that patients should be closely monitored while using them, but that does not happen in practice. Patients are able to obtain repeat prescriptions of the medicine without seeing a health care professional, which can lead to patients being prescribed benzos for many years without being offered an opportunity to lower the dosage or try alternative treatments.
There are many problems related to the drugs beyond addiction and side effects. They can have catastrophic effects on children born to women prescribed them, such as congenital defects, and physical and mental handicaps; there is evidence that they can cause attention deficit disorder and autism. Increasing problems related to the black market and street use of benzodiazepines are emerging. In 1996, the previous Government made the benzodiazepine Halcion illegal. However, there is an increasing street market in other benzodiazepines: Rohypnol—the date rape drug—is a benzodiazepine. Benzodiazepines are increasingly used and abused with alcohol and opiate-based drugs.
The group that campaigns for action on the issue claims that there has been a contravention of the Medicines Act 1968 by drug companies producing these pharmaceuticals. It is claimed that they knew about the
188WH
cases of addiction, toxicity and side effects before the drugs were even licensed. The Journal of the American Medical Associations reported the problems as early as 1969. The Department of Health must increase its funding of research into the after effects and consequences of the drugs.
My constituent, Barry Haslam, has permanent neurological damage and other disabling conditions, yet he has recently been refused disability living allowance, which he had received for many years. On most days, he would fail all seven tests for mobility allowance and all four tests for care allowance, but on other days he is perfectly articulate and able to look after himself, get about and hold down part-time work, were any available.
The issue also concerns the Department of Social Security, which must urgently improve the disability benefits handbook on the matter. I remind hon. Members that MIND estimates that 1.2 million people are affected by addiction to benzodiazepines. For 20 years or so, benzos, including Valium, Ativan and Lorazepam, were fashionable drugs. They were prescribed in abundance on both sides of the Atlantic and considered to be the cure-all for depression, sleepless nights and a range of problems thought to be associated with the modern world. However, it took more than 25 years for United Kingdom medical authorities to issue guidelines, and it was not until 1988 that the committee on review of medicines toughened up the prescription guidelines for general practitioners.
In 1979, some 30 million prescriptions for benzos were issued in this country. Drug manufacturers, led by the company Roche Products Ltd., launched an onslaught on the medical profession, including 1,000 visits a week made by company representatives to general practitioners. Despite the 1980 review, prescriptions continued to be issued at similar levels throughout the 1980s. Even today, on the latest figures available, MIND estimates that 16 million prescriptions are issued each year. The drugs are being prescribed to one in four adults, to women more commonly than to men—indeed, twice as often. More than 1 million pensioners take benzodiazepines every night, supposedly to help them sleep. Despite the weight of evidence from both sides of the Atlantic and the current guidelines on prescriptions, no victim from those 20 to 30 years has ever been compensated. All collective legal actions have been withdrawn as legal aid licences have ended. A solicitor of Drummond Miller of Edinburgh, a well-known law firm in Edinburgh city, described as impossible the fight that the campaign has waged against the
"might of the multinational drug companies".
Indeed, in the United Kingdom, only one individual's legal case remains outstanding—and all power to his elbow.
I have no doubt that controlled and time-limited use of benzodiazepines can bring enormous relief to some patients. However, 40 years after their introduction, 30 years after the first warnings, and 10 years after the UK authorities put on the brakes, they remain commonplace and are still prescribed above the recommended level. The blight on our streets is getting worse. Home Office statistics show that such class C drugs are now a commonplace commodity in the street

189WH
market. In the past three months in my constituency, benzos have been the target in two burglaries of pharmacies, and there are hundreds of such cases throughout the country. The 1998 Home Office statistical bulletin shows that, from 1990 to 1995, 1,602 deaths were directly related to benzodiazepines, including 683 suicides. In the same period, 218 deaths were linked to heroin, and 483 to methadone. That is the scale of the problem.
In a recent Home Office pilot project undertaken in five locations throughout England, 61 per cent. of people arrested tested positive for drugs, one fifth of whom—12 per cent. of the total—tested positive for benzodiazepines, compared with only 10 per cent. for crack and cocaine combined and 8 per cent. for methadone. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended the introduction of additional controls on the import, export and possession of benzodiazepines, which, according to parliamentary written answer No. 93720, the Home Office is "actively considering". I believe that, in the lexicon of Sir Humphrey, "actively considering" means "probably". Let us hope that the Home Office acts forcefully and quickly.
We need joined-up policy. Leading academics on the subject have presented evidence to the drugs tsar, Mr. Keith Hellawell. We need recognition of the harm done to thousands of people, robust guidelines that are forcefully promoted and a review of the classification of benzodiazepines. We need stringent support for addicts in the NHS, social services and the voluntary sector, to ensure that the withdrawal from such drugs is beneficial and does not increase the pain and suffering of many addicts. The problem of benzodiazepines is an iceberg, involving, according to accepted figures, 1.2 millon people addicted as a result of over-long prescription of the drugs. It involves an increasingly dangerous street trade and a level of ignorance and lack of awareness that is perpetuating the problem rather than solving it, 40 years after the first warnings of the effects of Valium.
11.46 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on having raised this important issue. I assure him and my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—he takes a close interest in such matters—that we treat the issues raised extremely seriously, and have no intention of sweeping them under the carpet.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth said, a great deal of research has been conducted and much has been written on the topic over the past 25 years or so. In the past three years, the Medical Research Council has commissioned more than £1.5 million-worth of research into benzodiazepine use. The largest project, which is worth more than £1 million, deals specifically with benzodiazepine addiction.
Based on the findings of existing research, current advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines is in the British National Formulary, which as my hon. Friend will know, is distributed regularly to all doctors.
190WH
It states clearly that benzodiazepines are indicated for the short-term relief of anxiety that is severe, disabling or subjecting the individual to unacceptable distress, occurring alone or in association with insomnia or short-term psychosomatic, organic or psychotic illness. The use of benzodiazepines to treat short-term mild anxiety is now considered inappropriate and unsuitable. The Committee on Safety of Medicines advises that benzodiazepines should be used to treat insomnia only when it is severe, disabling or subjecting the individual to extreme distress.
My Department has taken several measures to support the appropriate use of such drugs, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth referred in his thoughtful and well-constructed remarks. We recently published a new national service framework for mental health services, in which we spell out national standards for mental health, taking into account mental health promotion, primary care, access to services, effective services for people with severe mental illness, and other issues. Of particular relevance to this debate is that primary care services in the national service framework are required to work with specialist care providers to develop and implement assessment and management protocols for several mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, for which benzodiazepine is prescribed. Those protocols will draw on the best available evidence and will help to establish proper consistency in managing such conditions throughout the country.
My Department has also been focusing on preventing addiction or dependence from ever occurring, by warning GPs and other prescribers of the potential side effects of prescribed medicines and in particular of the dangers of addiction to benzodiazepines.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the side effects of pregnant women using benzodiazepine. I understand and am currently advised, that there is no proven link between benzodiazepine use and damage to developing foetuses. Current advice is that all drugs should be avoided in pregnancy if at all possible. The Government keep the issue of benzodiazepine use in pregnancy under close review, as we do the use of other drugs, through organisations such as the Advisory Council on Drug Misuse.
Doctors have an ethical responsibility to inform patients about any treatment proposed, including possible side effects of prescribed medicines. It is the responsibility of health authorities to ensure that adequate prescribing controls are in place. Conspicuous poor prescribing would result in disciplinary action from either the health authority or the General Medical Council. The use of clinical audit and peer review has also provided a powerful incentive for local clinicians to study their patterns of care and improve prescribing standards, which is now part of the Government's clinical governance agenda.
The Department funds a number of publications that provide up-to-date information on a variety of treatments. Those are made readily available to GPs, pharmacists and other health professionals. As my hon. Friend will know, the British National Formulary is published by the British Medical Association and the Royal Society of Great Britain and is issued every six months, free of charge to all GPs, pharmacists and other health professionals. The medicines resource centre

191WH
publishes a monthly bulletin giving up-to-date information on the treatment of various conditions and the drugs involved in such treatment.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that our knowledge of the chemistry of the brain is in its infancy, and that the rash, vast over-prescribing of benzodiazepines has done damage that dwarfs all that done by illegal drugs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) made clear? We are repeating those experiments now with the prescription of Prozac and Ritalin. Ritalin is prescribed to 2 million children in America. Should we not tell pharmaceutical companies that they should not be allowed to use dangerous drugs with unknown consequences in an experiment that serves not the public's need, but companies' profits?
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, the subject of the debate is benzodiazepines, but he raises the subject of Prozac. I am quite happy to correspond with him about his concerns, or he could come into the Department and discuss them with officials and with me. If possible, I would like to confine my remarks today to the issue of benzodiazepines.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. That is indeed the subject to which the Minister must confine his remarks.
Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying hard to do so, tempting though my hon. Friend's intervention is.
In addition to the literature available to GPs, most health authorities employ professional advisers, both medical and pharmaceutical, whose role is to provide another source of advice and information on medical and prescribing issues to GPs in the area. Those arrangements have had tangible success in the sense that the number of prescriptions for tranquillisers continues to fall. That focus on preventing people from becoming dependent on these drugs has resulted in the number of prescriptions of benzodiazepines dispensed in the community falling steadily from more than 20 million in 1985 to a little more than 13 million in 1998, which is lower than the figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth.
The volume of benzodiazepine prescribing in the community is monitored and has this year been included as a national indicator of performance of the national health service through the performance assessment framework. That should allow health authorities to compare how they perform against national averages, and to benchmark themselves against similar organisations within the NHS, so as to identify where they can improve their performance. The monitoring of prescriptions of benzodiazepines is further developed in our recently published national service framework. Local clinical audit programmes are being asked to focus on prescribing rates for a range of drugs, including the benzodiazepines. As the mental health minimum dataset, which is being piloted, is rolled out across the country, the prescription of benzodiazepines will be monitored in relation to hospital, as well as community, prescribing. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that.
192WH
What have we been able to do to tackle dependence on these drugs? Treatment may be offered in primary care or in more specialised settings. Clear advice is given in the British National Formulary that withdrawal of benzodiazepines from patients who have developed dependence problems must be gradual. In some cases, a withdrawal programme may extend over many weeks. It is important that people are well supported during the process and helped to develop other ways of coping with their anxiety, sleeplessness and other symptoms.
For those who have developed dependence on tranquillisers, treatment may be offered in primary or secondary care settings. Anxiety management, which may be provided on an individual or group basis, often includes a focus on cessation of usage of tranquillisers. Therapy in secondary care may be made available in clinical psychology departments by way of a day hospital or community mental health team. Counselling and psychotherapy are available on the NHS and form an important part of the range of medical and non-medical provision for people with mental health problems. All such issues are covered by the national service framework. We know that such treatments can be effective. They are increasingly popular and are in great demand. That is why we are committed to ensuring that the right treatments are delivered where they are needed most.
The Department issued "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" to all GPs in April. Those guidelines were written and peer-reviewed by experts. They give advice on treating misuse of a range of drugs, including benzodiazepines, and will reflect best evidence and knowledge of what works in treating drug misusers. For example, they contain advice on the best way to manage benzodiazepine withdrawal. Given that the only source of benzodiazepines is through diversion of prescribed medication, the guidelines stress to doctors and professionals the importance of appropriate and secure prescribing.
There are, of course, several organisations working to help people to overcome benzodiazepine addiction and that includes voluntary sector bodies. In 1994, the Mental Health Foundation produced an excellent publication entitled "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence", which was aimed at general practice. It not only gives a summary of good practice in prescribing, but sets out a protocol in the management of benzodiazepine withdrawal. It remains as valid today as it was in 1994, and those working in general practice would be well advised to apply the principles that it sets out. The Mental Health Foundation also issued a booklet aimed at people who use tranquillisers, entitled "A Guide to Starting and Stopping Tranquillisers and Sleeping Tablets", which contains good, practical advice.
Apart from the Mental Health Foundation, I should like to mention the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction. CITA aims to raise awareness of the problems of drug addiction and to support the withdrawal and rehabilitation of those addicted to tranquillisers. It helps to train doctors and other health workers in respect of benzodiazepine withdrawal, and provides support to a variety of health professionals. It does that by running 27 clinics in GP practices and by providing training through workshops, conferences and

193WH
literature, as well as a helpline that is open five days a week. In addition, it provides a valuable resource for the media, fielding inquiries and providing information.
I mention that because my Department helped to maintain and consolidate CITA's helpline with funding of more than £30,000 over three years. In addition, earlier this year, my officials met representatives of CITA to discuss its current work programme and to see what further help we could give. I am pleased to say that CITA has now made an application for further assistance from next April to help to establish a number of clinics on Merseyside. That will build on its existing good work, most notably in Wigan and Bolton, and provide for face-to-face counselling coupled with the innovative use of natural therapies in helping patients to cope with withdrawal. I am not in a position to say today what the outcome of the application will be, but I hope that we will be able to include it in our wider programme of support for the voluntary sector.
I now want to concentrate on the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth about our part of the world, the northwest. He raised concern about the proportion of people attending drug misuse treatment in his constituency who report benzodiazepines as their main drug. Nationally, that proportion is relatively low—about 2 per cent. I understand that that figure is roughly the same in my hon. Friend's local health authority—the West Pennine health authority—and the north-west region as a whole.
Much more worrying is the proportion of people who report using benzodiazepines as a subsidiary or secondary drug. Nationally, that figure is about 16 per
194WH
cent. I understand that the figure for the West Pennine authority is much higher, at about 40 per cent. That is also higher than figures for elsewhere in the north-west region.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are acting to reduce high levels of prescribing. For example, in the West Pennine authority, audits have been carried out of GP practices. In addition, the health authority intends to run a series of workshops aimed at primary care staff to inform the way in which they prescribe benzodiazepines. The West Pennine health authority plans to relaunch its guidelines for planned benzodiazepine withdrawal, and that will be fully audited to determine the success of GP withdrawal programmes. There will also be a review of the evidence for use of benzodiazepines by drug misusers to develop further guidance for GPs. As part of the Department of Health's north-west regional offices's performance review of its health authorities, benzodiazepine prescribing will be monitored very carefully.
I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about benzodiazepine prescribing in his constituency and I hope that he will be reassured about the action we are taking. The regional office and the health authority will continue to consider the issue closely in future. We are aware that, although a lot of good work is already under way, there is more to be done to ensure that everyone has access to the best possible services.
Although benzodiazepines will continue to have a place in treating short-term mental health problems, alongside counselling and other psychological interventions, I can assure my hon. Friend—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Public Transport (South Gloucestershire)
12 noon
Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the issue of public transport in south Gloucestershire, and in my constitutency of Northavon in particular, because the issue affects the quality of life of my constituents more than many others. Because Northavon is a mixed rural and edge-of-city constituency, car use is not a luxury, but a necessity in many cases. I frequently receive letters about public transport, so I am grateful to have the chance to draw the issue to the Minister's attention today.
At the outset, it is important to acknowledge and welcome what has been done during the past few years. Although I have many criticisms of the current situation, there have been some small steps in the right direction. We were grateful to receive funding through the rural bus grant scheme and the rural bus challenge scheme, which has funded some vitally needed community transport initiatives in south Gloucestershire. Those initiatives have identified an untapped demand and have been overwhelmed by interest from people who need those services, but have hitherto been unable to access them.
A preliminary skim—I confess to no more—of the Transport Bill suggests that its measures on bus services will be a modest step in the right direction. However, my contention is that the measures that have been taken, welcome though they are, are insufficient to deal with the scale of the problem. I shall talk about bus services in south Gloucestershire and say a few words about train services and rapid transit schemes to highlight my concerns, in the hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government's strategy is adequate to deal with the scale of the problem.
One of my main concerns is that bus subsidy arrangements are not providing the taxpayer with good value for money, because bus companies have councils over a barrel. I shall give one example of how I believe that things have gone wrong. Recently, a new out-of-town shopping centre, The Mall at Cribbs Causeway, opened in my constituency. Many of my constituents shop or work there; one of the smaller private bus operators in the area spotted the potential for a new commercial route from Yate, the largest town in my constituency, to The Mall, and it set up a bus service. The dominant bus company spotted this and decided that it, too, would run a service along the same route. Before long the inevitable happened, and the first company was driven—almost literally—out of business.
The slightly sinister twist to the story is that the dominant bus company then decided that it could not continue to run the service either and told the council that it could not keep the service going. The council was then faced with the problem of shoppers who wanted to go to The Mall and workers who wanted to get to their jobs; both groups had established patterns of travel by bus. The council was faced with something similar to blackmail: either it could let the service die, with the result that the shoppers and workers would clog up the roads even more, or it could step in and provide subsidy. Sure enough, public money was found to subsidise what had previously been a commercial service.
Public money should be used to provide better bus services, but it is only lining the pockets of the bus operators. The inequality of power between the bus
196WH
company and the local authority greatly concerns me. At the start of the process, the private operator decides which services it can run on a commercial basis. That leaves the council to identify from among the remainder routes where tendering is required, but that tendering process is almost a joke. In parts of my constituency, 80 per cent. of tenders go to one company, so there is one dominant group—the First Group, in various incarnations. That company knows that, if it does not identify a route as a commercial route, there is a good chance that the council will pay it to run a service on that route anyway. I am concerned that, in that way, money that should be used to improve services is being used to help bus companies.
What about the quality of services? There is a traffic commissioner, who, in principle, is supposed to keep an eye on such things. However, I am reliably informed that, if I were to say that he had a handful of inspectors in my constituency, I would be guilty of gross exaggeration. He does not have adequate resources to deal with the task. I am not convinced that public subsidy for bus services in south Gloucestershire is good value for money. I believe that to be is a legacy from the deregulation that took place 10 to 15 years ago. I accept that some modest steps in the other direction may have been taken, but I have reservations about whether those steps have gone far enough.
I have mentioned the rural bus grant, which I welcome, but it takes a long time to change people's patterns of travel, especially in rural areas. People move to rural areas in the knowledge that they can get to work by car, and the availability of a bus service for a year or two will not change that pattern. Only if people know that a service will continue, year in and year out, and be reliable and dependable, will they have the incentive to change their habits. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would outline for south Gloucestershire's residents what the future holds for services provided through the rural bus grant when the money runs out. What will happen in two or three years' time? Will those services simply cease, or can my constituents base their travelling patterns on the assumption that the services will continue?
I understand the need for the rural bus grant to produce new services, but that rule has created some anomalies. I understand that money cannot be used for services that were in place on 1 May 1998, but that services started then and subsequently discontinued can be resurrected under the scheme. That creates an arbitrary distinction between services that are borderline—those which have been running for a few years and need to be kept going in the interests of the public transport infrastructure, but which cannot be supported through the scheme—and new services, for which there is not much demand, but which can be funded. I wonder whether that arbitrary cut-off date should be reconsidered.
Other arbitrary features of the scheme affect south Gloucestershire. The limit on communities numbering 10,000 or fewer has some odd consequences for my constituency. In neighbouring parishes, one can have a bus service and another cannot because of population density. In towns such as Thornbury, which is probably the second largest town in my constituency, the public transport network is poor. The area is rural, on any

197WH
understanding of that term, but it cannot benefit from the grant. Clearly, there mut be a cut-off point, but I am not convinced that it has been drawn in the right place.
I should like to make one final observation on bus services before I move on to consider rail issues. The community transport support has been warmly welcomed. The Thornbury-Severn Vale link was opened by the previous Minister of Transport and, as I said earlier, demand for those services has been considerable. However, once again, we are faced with the question of what will happen in the long term. The money has bought the buses, hired the office and provided someone to run the scheme, but what is the future for the pensioners and disabled people who have become dependent on those services? In two or three years' time, will they still be able to go to their lunch clubs, visit their relatives or get to hospital? Some indication of the longterm position would be very valuable. I contend that people will change their behaviour only if they have security, predictability and reliability, and if they know that services will continue, rather than just exist for a while and then disappear. Indeed, the very act of taking away the subsidy at the end of a certain period demoralises people and causes them to think that they cannot rely on bus services.
I have dwelt at some lengths on buses because they are often seen as the poor relation of the transport network, but I want to touch on two other categories of local public transport. The local train services in my constituency—there are stations at Pilning, Severn Beach and Yate—are the Cinderella services. To give one example, when the rugby world cup was held in south Wales, trains were taken off the Severn Beach to Bristol line in order to take passengers to Cardiff. There is often a lack of investment in track and the quality of service is unreliable, so people give up using rail. Once people have given up using the railway, it is an almost impossible task to persuade them to come back. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will offer some reassurance that those local networks that are not mainline networks will have a key place in the future.
In that context, I must mention one issue that affects south Gloucestershire and many areas beyond, where a crisis is imminent. That is the threat by British Rail, or its successor, Rail Property Ltd., to sell off land adjoining stations and land that previously contained rail track. I understand that, in January 2000, 14 sites in south Gloucestershire may be sold off to the highest bidder. I should like to read from a letter from the public transport manager of South Gloucestershire council to the chief executive of Rail Property Ltd., sent in mid-November, in which the public transport manager expressed his concern. It states:
"It appears … incongrous and … disappointing to a local authority that two different agencies of central government are working towards apparently diametrically opposite ends. One, the British Rail Property Board … has a remit to sell off former rail land to the highest bidder. The other, the DETR … has objectives of increasing use of the rail network (an objective which is clearly not helped if some of the most valuable land required to expand the rail network has been sold off for other development)."
Once that land is sold and there are houses on it, it will not be used for rail again and an opportunity will be gone. We need a clear steer from the Government, demonstrating that they are aware of the urgency of this
198WH
issue and that they have it in hand. My local council's planning committee will meet on Thursday to consider the issue. All it can do to preserve those sites is to buy them at market value, but there is no money in the budget to do so, so what can it do? Must it watch the sites being sold and lose any hope of improving services, rather than withdrawing them? This is an urgent issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Finally, I turn to the light rapid transit scheme from south Gloucestershire into Bristol, which has been a long-standing dream of many in the south Gloucestershire public transport sector—although a nightmare for others. Last year, I attended a presentation on that scheme. An experienced councillor said to me afterwards, "That was all very interesting, but I heard the same thing five years ago." People simply do not believe that it is going to happen. Trying to work out the Government's approach to this matter is akin to Kremlinology—we get a nudge here and a wink there. First, the new Government are assumed to be pro-public transport, then we hear that there is no money for light rail; now we hear that an area that might have road charges, such as Bristol, may get some money. We do not know what is really going on or when we will hear for sure. I would be grateful for a clear answer—whatever it is—so that we can plan local public transport services.
The problems I have described have deep roots. There is no overall strategy to address growth in road traffic in south Gloucestershire, yet still more houses are being built, still more people are moving in and dependence on the private car is increasing, not decreasing. I am unclear whether the Government's strategy for south Gloucestershire is that road traffic should fall, remain at current levels or rise by only a certain percentage; I am not even sure that they have said what their current strategy is. The pattern of development—that is, where houses and businesses are located—is reinforcing the pressure on the area's roads. I welcome what has been done so far, and we are grateful for it, but I feel that the scale of what has been done is not up to the scale of the problem. I hope that the Minister can convince me otherwise.
12.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate. I am grateful for his reference to the modest benefits and advances resulting from Government policies to date; I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies.
Local public transport is a popular and topical theme; indeed, I was dealing with the same subject only yesterday evening in a debate introduced by the hon. Gentleman's west country colleague, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). This debate is also timely in the light of last Wednesday's publication of the Government's radical and wide-ranging Transport Bill. The Bill is a significant step towards a safer, more integrated and better quality transport system. It puts into practice many of the measures that we set out in our White Paper on the future of transport, the first comprehensive Government statement on transport in 20 years, which we published within 18 months of being elected.

199WH
Before I discuss the provisions of the Transport Bill, I shall respond to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about transport in his constituency. I am sure that he will know that each local transport authority is now required to prepare a local transport plan setting out its transport strategy and the measures necessary to carry that strategy forward. The provisional local transport plan for south Gloucestershire is being assessed by my officials in the Government office for the south-west, so I must be careful not to comment on the merits of its proposals or to speculate on the likely allocation of resources. I can make some general comments on the plan, but before I do so, it is important to set the scene in south Gloucestershire.
I know that there has been a great deal of new development in the district over the past 20 years, particularly in the north fringe of Bristol. The result has been growing traffic congestion, a trend that South Gloucestershire council is anxious to reverse through a variety of measures designed to increase the use of public transport. The provisional local transport plan identifies a wide range of opportunities to improve public transport in the district, including a scheme—to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—to establish a light rail system from Bradley Stoke on the northern fringe of Bristol to the city centre. It is being promoted jointly by Bristol city council and South Gloucestershire council and is envisaged as the first in a network of such links across Bristol and the surrounding area. The scheme's estimated capital cost is about £102 million, some 60 per cent. of which is expected to come from the private sector. The preferred method of meeting the remainder is through the private finance initiative; both councils are seeking support for that from the Government.
A full assessment of all local transport plans is under way. All major schemes, including light rapid transit systems, are being considered on their transport merits and on how they are integrated with the plans' objectives and strategies. We expect to announce very soon a shortlist of projects that might be supported over the next five years. Although I am unable to give a commitment on this particular LRT proposal, the Government welcome Bristol's innovative approach, especially its interest in piloting a congestion charging system. Given the long-standing enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman's party for congestion charging, I hope that the Liberal Democrat-led South Gloucestershire council will maintain its support for that proposal.
South Gloucestershire council has an evolving quality bus partnership, which is designed to improve the quality and quantity of bus services. In developing that partnership, the council will address issues of fares and through ticketing for multi-stage journeys. Work is also under way in the north fringe of Bristol to establish an infrastructure for bus priority junctions through the introduction of urban traffic control systems. That will lessen delays and enable more accurate timetabling.
I recognise that conventional public transport cannot always meet the diverse accessibility needs of all in our communities. Voluntary action is the strength of local communities everywhere, so we are conducting a review of voluntary and community transport activity to gain a better understanding of the role played by the voluntary sector. We envisage parish councils in England as valuable partners in improving accessibility in rural
200WH
areas. We would like them to take an increasing role in community transport and to use their powers to fund community bus services.
South Gloucestershire council is also working with Railtrack and the train operators to improve facilities and services and to investigate the potential for making better use of under-used rail infrastructure. In particular, the line to Severnside could be reinstated to service existing development at Cribbs Causeway. Interchanges between public transport and other modes form the key nodes of the transport system. By establishing and improving those interchanges, the council will try to achieve a more integrated public transport system with a greater focus within south Gloucestershire.
Mr. Webb: The Minister mentioned the route to Cribbs Causeway. That would go through Henbury, which is currently closed; moreover, it is one of the sites that the British Rail Property Board wants to sell off. Can the Minister tell me how the council might set about preventing that, given that there is no budget for it to buy the land itself?
Mr. Hill: I fully intend to address the issue of British Rail property in due course.
The council is committed to making information on public transport services readily available through a variety of media in a user-friendly format. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about bus services, I note that he welcomes the benefits that the rural bus grant initiative has brought to south Gloucestershire. The area has received nearly £200,000 through the initiative, which has produced 31 entirely new or improved bus services in country districts. One of the conditions of the new rural bus subsidy grant was that it could not be used to fund services that were running on 1 May 1998; in other words, it cannot be used to fund withdrawn services. Therefore, an operator threatening to withdraw a service could not expect to be rewarded by receiving a contract that is funded by a rural bus subsidy.
There might be cases in which an operator has to withdraw from a contract because it is no longer economic for it to provide the service under the terms of that contract. The 1 May 1998 rule for the rural bus service grant has caused some difficulties, but it is an important principle that new funding must be used to support new services. I do not apologise for that. Local authority associations were fully consulted on all the grant conditions and they specifically supported the 1 May principle.
The Government did not want the new money to leak into maintaining the status quo—for example, operators withdrawing services in the expectation of subsidy, or authorities with many conflicting priorities cutting their subsidy spending. However, we will consider whether the rules should be changed in future. The Government are carefully monitoring the effects of the rural bus grant initiative with a view to taking decisions in due course about its future operation.

201WH
Local bus services operate in a deregulated market: 85 per cent. of services are run by commercial operators and only 15 per cent. are subsidised by local authorities. It is for commercial operators to decide which services they wish to operate. Local authorities have the power to plug gaps, but we recognise that they often have to make difficult choices between conflicting calls on resources. The Government also propose to strengthen the powers of the traffic commissioners with regard to bus companies, as part of the new Transport Bill.
The hon. Member for Northavon expressed concern about developments on disused railway tracks. That matter has been considered by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs—a most distinguished Select Committee, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of the Committee's recommendations, we have taken steps to ensure that Railtrack, railway companies and local authorities will be kept informed of land sales, giving them the opportunity to acquire sites that could be used to reestablish the rail network.
The Government have now taken a major step in promoting a more integrated transport system through the publication last week of the Transport Bill. The centrepiece of the Bill is better public transport, which will offer more choice for motorists and for everyone else. The Bill contains radical measures designed to deliver the safe, modern, high-quality transport system that this country needs and deserves. These include promoting the use of railways through the Strategic Rail Authority, improving bus services and reducing road congestion and pollution. The Bill is the most comprehensive piece of transport legislation for 30 years.
The question of the apparent delay in introducing this legislation has been raised. However, there are no instantaneous solutions, and much preparatory work has been required to enable us to identify the policies needed to overcome the failures of the past 20 years. We inherited high and growing levels of road traffic congestion, poor public transport, inadequate provision for pedestrians and cyclists, and significant under-investment in road maintenance. Nevertheless, we have already made significant headway through increased investment, especially in public transport and road maintenance. The measures in the Bill pave the way for the modern, effective transport system that the country needs and deserves.
Mr. Webb: I sense that the Minister has moved away from the issue of the sale of rail-owned land. He said that the local authorities had been notified about the land sales. Certainly, they have been told that there is a threat of certain routes being sold off, and that they will never be able to use them, but what can they do about that?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. However, we do not envisage local authorities acting unilaterally to acquire land that might be used for either rail or alternative public transport purposes. We certainly do not expect the full burden of any financial responsibility accruing from the acquisition of such sites to fall entirely or even largely on local authorities. The
202WH
Government's committment in transport policy is towards partnership: we certainly expect local authorities to operate in partnership with private operators, developers and other interested parties in such disposals in future.
The Government recognise that motorists will not readily switch to public transport unless it is significantly better and more reliable. We also realise that we cannot achieve these measures unless we are prepared to put more resources into public transport. That is why the comprehensive spending review allocated a further £700 million over the next three years. We are also spending an extra £170 million on rural buses, which has so far resulted in an extra 1,800 new and enhanced services in England.
A key measure in the Bill is the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority, which will make railway regulation more effective and make sure that the fragmented rail companies provide a decent national service. We also recognise that buses are crucial to the success of our integrated transport system and that they can provide a real alternative to car use. Local authorities will be given the tools necessary to develop quality public transport in their areas, and to tackle road congestion and pollution. The Bill will enable authorities and bus operators to deliver more through ticketing, higher quality buses, more frequent services and better information. About 130 quality partnerships have already been established on a voluntary basis with bus operators throughout the country, the result of which has been an increase in bus usage of between 10 and 40 per cent. in the areas involved.
To deal with congestion and pollution, the Bill gives local authorities new powers to introduce charges on congested roads and to introduce workplace parking charges. The money raised will be put back into improving local transport, improving choice and tackling congestion. We welcome the strong interest expressed by the city of Bristol in the opportunities offered by this scheme.
The Transport Bill will set the national framework, but the onus will be on local authorities to put the measures into practice. We believe that local people are best placed to find local solutions to local transport problems. The hon. Member for Northavon will be aware that we have introduced local transport plans as a centrepiece of our proposals. Those set out authorities' strategies for transport and are the key mechanism for pulling all local activity together. Authorities will also have to prepare a bus strategy and will be given powers to make effective changes to benefit bus passengers. Together, the local transport plan and the bus strategy will provide a solid basis for implementing integrated transport policies at local level.
As a first stage in this process, all county and unitary authorities have now submitted their provisional five-year transport plans, on the basis of which resources will be allocated for the next financial year. Authorities will then roll on their plans by one year and submit full plans next summer for the period 2001 to 2006. We are assessing the provisional plans and will shortly announce the allocation of resources for next year.

203WH
From the feedback that we have received so far, authorities seem to be responding positively to the challenge of producing local transport plans. They have overwhelmingly welcomed the national policy framework, and the process of preparing plans is acting as a positive force for change.
The Transport Bill now provides a solid framework for creating a more integrated transport system in this country. It will now be up to the local authorities to take measures forward. South Gloucestershire council is clearly committed to creating a more integrated
204WH
transport system in its district. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is too early for me to speculate on the outcome of the local transport plan process in south Gloucestershire, but the position will become clearer when the allocations are made for the new financial year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. As the hon. Member raising the next Adjournment debate is present, and the Minister is also with us, we shall now move on.

Methadone
12.30 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: Rehabilitation centres have relied on methadone as the primary treatment for drug addiction from the national health service for almost 30 years. I believe that there is a place for methadone in the clinic. However, although it is commonly used in the treatment of opiate addiction, and its use is endorsed in "Drug Misuse and Dependence: Guidelines on Clinical Management", it is now widely recognised as a street drug in its own right. It was solely responsible for 48 deaths in a six-month period in 1998. Nearly 59 per cent. of those who died had obtained the drug illegally, demonstrating clearly the view that methadone now has its own street currency.
Methadone is implicated as a drug of misuse, often associated with other drugs, in more than 400 deaths a year in the United Kingdom. Many addicts have reported that they find methadone harder to give up than heroin.
In Scotland, the use of methadone as a treatment for opiate addiction has been hailed as a state-sponsored drugs plague. It appears that methadone has been misused and over-used as the only pharmaceutical method of treating opiate addiction. Therefore, why is methadone widely advocated in this country as the optimum method for the treatment of opiate addiction? There are a number of reasons, and cost is not among them.
First, an inadequate appraisal has been made of the research evidence available on methadone. Secondly, we are too accustomed to the drug. It has been prescribed for more than 20 years for the treatment of opiate addicts, and doctors are not encouraged to prescribe alternatives. There is a lack of will to change prescribing habits in the United Kingdom. If we are to reduce the number of deaths each year in which methadone is cited as the sole drug used, those habits must change.
In France, where Buprenorphine has been widely prescribed since 1996, the experience is different. Buprenorphine is the generic name for a drug branded as Subutex by Schering-Plough, which distributes the drug in the United Kingdom. It is a partial opioid agonist, unlike heroin and methadone, which are full agonists. The effect of that difference is realised in the treatment of opiate addiction. As a partial agonist, Buprenorphine decreases cravings for street heroin, tempers withdrawal symptoms and, importantly, negates any effect if street heroin is used simultaneously. It also carries a significantly lower risk of overdose, especially in polypharmacy cases.
By prescribing methadone alternatives, it is possible to save lives and encourage the rehabilitation of addicts. Since Buprenorphine was licensed in 1996 in France, the number of deaths from heroin overdoses has fallen year on year—from 336 in 1996 to 92 in 1998. Clearly, any pharmaceutical treatment must be given in the context of other therapy that helps addicts to sustain their treatment and find a new life for themselves. Even if the drug was administered in a multi-therapeutic context, a degree of success must still be attributed to the use of Buprenorphine.
206WH
However, the use of Buprenorphine is not clearly endorsed in the Department of Health clinical guidelines to which I referred. That is because of previous research highlighting the potential for its abuse, especially as the analgesic Temagesic. Although a degree of risk exists, it is comparatively less than that associated with the use of methadone. In France in 1997, six deaths occurred among the 49,000 people treated with Buprenorphine. There were more deaths in the same period among only 2,350 patients treated with methadone.
An economic gain can also be realised indirectly from the wider use of Buprenorphine, through a reduction in the need for health care and a reduction in the impact on the criminal justice system. Schering-Plough estimates the cost to the state as nearly £10,000 per addict per year, but the annual cost of treatment with Buprenorphine would be £2,000, with some added cost for additional suppport.
In France, 300 heroin addicts who were treated with Buprenorphine took part in a longitudinal study that demonstrated a 70 per cent. reduction in heroin use, a 25 per cent. improvement in housing and a 15 per cent. improvement in employment. Other indicators are available that demonstrate a shift to social reintegration—there was a 14 per cent. decline in drug dealing, a 7 per cent. decline in criminal activity and more than 40 per cent. of those who took part in the study reported improved personal relationships. Such a relatively small study easily demonstrates how effective treatment of opiate addicts can provide real benefits to the individuals concerned and society at large.
I should stress that Buprenorphine is not the only currently available alternative to methadone to combat opiate addiction. Indeed, two other drugs have been shown to be effective—laevo-alpha-acetylmethadol, which is commonly known as LAAM, and laevo-methadone. Unfortunately, those drugs are not licensed for such use in this country, although their efficacy is acknowledged in the clinical guidelines. LAAM is now licensed for use in Australia and the United States of America. Because the two drugs are longer-acting, it is claimed that they are much safer. They can also be administered orally, thereby minimising the injection culture and the consequent risk from hepatitis and HIV. As the new biotransformation process proposed by a north-west research laboratory now significantly reduces the cost of production of LAAM and laevo-methadone, the two drugs offer not only a clinically effective but a cost-effective alternative to methadone. One thing is clear: we must stimulate primary research and clinical trials in this area. I ask the Minister to give his attention to that.
The French experience is remarkable but not unique. Another large study in New South Wales showed that LAAM and Buprenorphine are at least as effective as methadone, and safer. In the United States of America, a study of the two drugs conducted at the John Hopkins School of Medicine showed that heroin use could be reduced by 80 per cent. The market for methadone alternatives is improving all the time. In two years' time, Buprenorphine will be available in a form that includes Naloxone, which will greatly reduce any risk of overdose. It is estimated that 1,000 lives could be saved by the wider prescription of methadone alternatives such as Buprenorphine.

207WH
To prescribe Buprenorphine for the treatment of an opiate addict within the guidelines, however, a doctor must write 14 separate prescriptions for a fortnight's supply—one every day. That is because Buprenorphine, while licensed under the UK Medicines Control Agency and recognised by the clinical guidelines, is not included on the FPIO form used by general practitioners. Until it is included on that form, use of Buprenorphine will be unnecessarily hindered in this country. I ask the Minister to examine that issue urgently.
I applied for this debate in order to urge the Minister to widen the choice of drugs available for the treatment of opiate addiction, and to ask him to stimulate research into the discovery and use of other opiate substitutes that are safer than methadone. If the Government are to succeed in reducing drug misuse and associated criminal behaviour, they must take the issue of drug rehabilitation seriously. They must remove any barriers to choice, in a safe and supportive way, for addicts and health professionals who treat them. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
12.38pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on raising such serious issues, and on his thoughtful comments. I am aware of his personal interest in the issues and of the good work that he does as chairman of the all-party group on drugs misuse.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government take the issue of drugs misuse seriously. One of the key objectives of the Government's 10-year strategy, set out in "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", is to enable people with drug problems to overcome them and live healthy and crime-free lives. That is why we will have allocated, over the next three years, an additional £50 million to health authorities and more than £20 million to social services departments for the provision of effective treatment services. The aim of any treatment, ultimately, is to enable the patient to achieve the goal of abstinence. We recognise, however, that drugs dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition, and that patients will need support, at times, when they relapse into drugs misuse after periods of abstinence. As my hon. Friend recognised, long-term methadone maintenance may help the patient to reduce or stop using illicit opiates.
Methadone is used internationally in the treatment of people who are dependent on opiates such as heroin. A substantial body of research supports the use of drugs such as methadone in managing dependence. For example, the national treatment outcome research study showed that both in-patient and community methadone programmes dramatically reduced patients' involvement in crime, and use of heroin and other illicit drugs. Furthermore, about one fifth of those on methadone abstained from opiates after two years' treatment. That shows that some drug misusers who enter methadone substitution programmes can abstain and are not necessarily maintained on the medication for long periods without reduction.
Prescribing should be seen as an enhancement of other medical and social interventions, rather than the sole treatment component. Support and advice on issues
208WH
such as housing, education and training are important elements in enabling people to improve their lives and end dependence on illegal drugs.
We also recognise the other benefits of taking medications orally. As my hon. Friend noted, injecting behaviour, which is physically damaging, is reduced. In turn, that can reduce the spread of blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis B and C, which can be spread through sharing injecting equipment. Regular appointments with prescribing doctors and drug workers also keep drug misusers in contact with treatment services, and provide a better opportunity to meet their general physical and mental health needs. The 1993 update report by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded that
"the benefit to be gained from oral methadone maintenance programmes both in terms of individual and public health and cost effectiveness has now been clearly demonstrated".
Much good work is being undertaken around the country to improve prescribing and dispensing practice. For example, we are aware of the four-way agreement in Berkshire, which links general practitioner, pharmacist, community drugs team and patient through a contract agreed by all the parties before any methadone is prescribed. The contract includes dispensing details such as supervised consumption and frequency of dispensing. The scheme is based on clear, commonly agreed protocols and a real partnership. It has at heart the needs of patients, but does not compromise the safety of the community and the professionals involved.
Although schemes such as this are very encouraging, we recognise that methadone is a powerful drug that, like any opiate, has addictive properties. Prescribing should not be undertaken without full assessment and regular reviews of the patient. Naturally, treatment should be tailored to the specific clinical needs of individual patients. That is why, in April, the Department of Health published "Drug Misuse and Dependence: Guidelines on Clinical Management", which guides all doctors on appropriate clinical interventions for drug misuse, including assessment, management of withdrawal and dependence, and prevention of relapse.
Those guidelines were drawn up by an expert working group and are based on a number of sources, including expert committee reports. We also took written evidence from professional bodies such as the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The guidelines were also peer reviewed, and all incorporated research was extensively examined.
The guidelines lay out the principles of safe and responsible prescribing to ensure maximum safety and benefit for the individual and the community. They state that, as a general principle, substitute drugs should initially be dispensed daily, which reduces the possibility of accidental overdose. In addition, they recommend the supervision of methadone consumption, which will help to prevent leakage on to the illicit market.
My hon. Friend referred to deaths linked to methadone and the percentage of people who obtain it illicitly, rather than on prescription. Although the figures are worrying, better prescribing and dispensing practices, informed by the clinical guidelines, will help to

209WH
bring about improvements. Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friend that we are not complacent about what is a serious problem.
In addition to the advice given in the clinical guidelines, £12 million was distributed to health authorities earlier this year from the drug misuse special allocation element of the modernisation fund. In using that money, priority was given to the introduction of supervised consumption schemes, particularly in community pharmacies. The nationwide implementation of those measures should substantially reduce methadone-related deaths.
There are also difficulties associated with attributing drug-related deaths to specific substances. As my hon. Friend will know, many deaths involve a mixture of drugs and alcohol, and it is not easy always to determine the relative quantities of different substances, or which was responsible for the individual's death. The reduction in injecting behaviour resulting from the use of such prescribed substitute drugs will help to reduce deaths from blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis B and C, in conjunction with other harm-minimisation measures such as needle and syringe exchange programmes. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs prevention working group is producing a report on reducing drug-related deaths. Its findings will form the basis of a comprehensive action plan to reduce such deaths, which is a target of the drug strategy.
As my hon. Friend said, although liquid methadone is currently the most commonly used drug in maintenance prescribing, it is important that a full range of effective medications is available to doctors. We welcome the introduction and use of appropriate and effective new drug treatments, and we will carefully review evidence of their effectiveness. The clinical guidelines provided information on alternative opiates and other drugs used in treating drug dependence that were available at the time of publication, including Lofexidine, Naltrexone, LAAM and Buprenorphine.
With regard to reducing illicit drug misuse, criminality and risk behaviour, such as sharing injecting equipment, LAAM's results have been comparable to methadone. However, as my hon. Friend, who has a relevant professional interest and expertise, will know, it is a longer acting drug and can be dispensed less frequently. So far, it has not been licensed for use in the UK for opioid dependence, but it shows promise as an alternative form of treatment. Buprenorphine, however, was licensed in the UK last year for the treatment of opioid dependence. Trials suggest that it may have an efficacy similar to methadone 50 to 60 mg, and we are sure that it has a valuable place in the overall treatment of opioid dependence.
The Department of Health is actively considering including Buprenorphine in the list of drugs on the special prescription form to which my hon. Friend referred. That form enables doctors to prescribe the dispensing of drugs on one prescription in daily instalments for up to a fortnight. My hon. Friend asked
210WH
me to consider prescription on an instalment basis, and the measure may lead to that. We anticipate a decision in the near future.
Like methadone, Buprenorphine is a powerful drug and not without its problems. It has potential for diversion and misuse, and it will not be suitable for all patients. It must be used carefully for patients with higher levels of opiate use, because it may precipitate partial withdrawal. It is also readily soluble, so dispensing must be carefully supervised to minimise the risk of injection. There is literature to suggest that, in other parts of the world, it has been used for injection.
My hon. Friend referred to the French experience with Buprenorphine. We understand that, on its introduction in France, there was considerable leakage on to the illicit market and substantial intravenous use. Furthermore, its use in the UK during the early 1980s resulted in similar concerns about safety and suitability. It is likely that only a relatively small percentage of patients who are currently treated with methadone would be treated instead with Buprenorphine, although some patients who are thought unsuitable for methadone may be suitable. However, we are pleased that another medication is now available to doctors in the treatment of drug dependence.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are not unaware of the importance of the issues that he has raised today, and we are looking at them carefully. He also asked for further research into other substitute medications in this country. There is a research base for LAAM and Buprenorphine, but most research has been conducted in north America, and we recognise the need for further research in this area in the UK. The United Kingdom deputy drugs tsar, Mike Trace, has confirmed that he will seek a meeting with the Medical Research Council to discuss research into alternative drug substitutes.
Although substitute prescribing has an important role, it should not be pursued in isolation. Drug dependence is a complex issue, and a full range of services should be available to meet all needs, including those of non-opiate users. Those services should include giving advice and information, needle exchange programmes, counselling, prescribing services and residential rehabilitation. Treatment should be carried out in a shared care scheme, involving specialists, general practitioners and other professionals such as community psychiatric nurses, pharmacists and general drug workers. That should ensure that all patients receive appropriate treatment and care, although we are aware that there are gaps in service provision in some areas of the country. That is why we have made an additional £70 million available to health authorities and local authorities over the next three years to enable the development of important new services across the country.
We are also concerned to maintain the quality of all treatment types. In addition to the clinical guidelines, the Department of Health has funded the substance misuse advisory service to produce a document entitled "Commissioning Standards for Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Care", which was published earlier this

211WH
year. We have also assisted the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse in producing a set of quality standards for treatment services.
Providing good quality all-round treatment is key to the success of our strategy. It is probable that substitute prescribing will remain a key part of treatment for many drug misusers who are currently dependent on heroin. Methadone's effectiveness is proven, and we are taking seriously and acting on the problem of deaths linked to
212WH
its use. Although methadone is currently the most commonly used drug, and will probably remain so, we appreciate the importance of making available a wide range of effective drugs, including Buprenorphine. We remain open-minded, and would welcome other new substitutes that are shown to be effective in the management of drug dependence.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Committee Room Facilities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many of the main committee rooms of the House have induction loop facilities for the hard of hearing; and if these facilities are available on each occasion when a committee room is used. [101615]

  Mrs. Roe
  Fifteen committee rooms in the House of Commons are fitted with induction loops. These facilities are only available when the amplification equipment has been switched on by a trained operator for meetings that are being televised or recorded.

  Lift Refurbishment
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what was the cost of the recent refurbishment of two lifts in Norman Shaw North. [101457]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  The estimated cost for the refurbishment of lifts HOP122 and 123 at Norman Shaw North is £275,000.

DEFENCE

  Procurement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the original in-service date, (b) the current in-service date, (c) the actual or estimated cost, (d) the years of peak expenditure and (e) the prime contractor for the Endorsed Staff Targets for (1) Future Offensive Air System, (2) Bowman, (3) Barmine Replacement, (4) Area Weapon Effects Simulator, (5) Future Short and Very Short Range Air Defence Systems (SHORADS/ VSHORADS), (6) Combined Arms Tactical Trainer, (7) Terrier, (8) Range Extension for Tactical Trunk Communications, (9) Future Engineer Tank, (10) Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapon System (LIMAWS), (11) Next Generation Light Anti Tank Weapon (NLAW), (12) Formation Battle Management System, (13) Theatre Wide Area Communications Network (TWACN), (14) Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft, (15) Future Amphibious Support Helicopter, (16) SCOT Capability Upgrade (SCUG), (17) Naval EHF Satellite Terminal (NEST) Communication Programme, (18) Electronic Warfare Database and Rapid Reaction Facility, (19) Sonar 2087 and (20) EW 2000. [98481]
  452W
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested is as follows:

  The basis for setting and approving in-service dates (ISDs) is currently under review in the context of the Smart Procurement Initiative. It should also be noted that costs quoted are for acquisition only, expressed in constant prices at 1999–2000 levels.

  1. Future Offensive Air System (FOAS)—The original in-service date (ISD) was 2015. The current ISD is 2017. The current cost estimate is about £10 billion, though this should be seen as a broad estimate only. Years of peak expenditure are expected to be 2017–18 and 2018–19. The FOAS project is currently in the Concept phase. Contractors for the Concept phase studies include British Aerospace and Matra BAe Dynamics (UK).

  2. BOWMAN—The original ISD was 1995. The current ISD is 2002, but this is under review. The current cost estimate is around £2.2 billion and the years of peak expenditure are expected to be 2002–03 and 2003–04. The prime contractor is ARCHER Communications Systems Ltd.

  3. BARMINE Replacement—The original and current ISDs are 2010. The current cost estimate is £54 million, with peak expenditure in 2007–08 and 2008–09. The prime contractor is not yet known.

  4. Area Weapons Effect Simulator—The original ISD was 1999. The current ISD is 2003. Current estimated costs are £99 million with peak expenditure in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The prime contractor is Cubic Defense Systems, USA.

  5. Future Short and Very Short Range Air Defence Systems (now known as Future Ground Based Air Defence—FGBAD)—The original ISD was 2015. The latest estimated ISD is 2020 but this will be considered further in the concept and assessment phases. The current cost estimate is around £4.5 billion. The peaks in expenditure will depend on the decisions made in the concept and assessment phases. The prime contractors for the two International Feasibility Studies—now completed—were Matra BAe Dynamics and Thomson-Thorn Missile Electronics. The planned further Concept work is likely to be placed on the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, who would be supported by the Rapier and High Velocity Missile Design Authorities.

  6. Combined Arms Tactical Trainer—The original ISD was 2000. The current ISD is 2001. The current estimated cost is £247 million with years of peak expenditure in 1997–98 to 2001–02. The prime contractor is Lockheed Martin Information Systems.

  7. TERRIER—The original ISD was 2005. The current ISD is 2009. Information on the current cost estimate is commercially sensitive and is being withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The two prime contractors for the competitive Project Definition phase are Vickers Defence Systems and Marconi Marine Land and Naval Systems.

  8.Range Extension for Tactical Trunk Communications—We have assumed that this is a reference to the satellite extension to the PTARMIGAN trunk communications system which was brought into

  453W

  service in September 1997 at an actual cost of £24.5 million. The prime contractor was Siemens Plessey and peak years of expenditure were 1995–96.

  9. Future Engineer Tank—The original ISD was 2001. The current ISD is 2006. Information on cost estimates is commercially sensitive and is being withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The three contractors for the competitive Feasibility studies are Vickers Defence Systems, Alvis Vehicles and Obrum, Poland.

  10. Lightweight Mobile Artillery Weapons System (LIMAWS)—The original and current ISD is 2007 for the howitzer only. The other elements of the system are not yet sufficiently defined. Information on cost estimates is commercially sensitive and is being withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The prime contractor is Marconi Marine Land and Naval Systems.

  11. Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon (NLAW)—The original and current ISD is 2006. Information on cost estimates is commercially sensitive and is being withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The two prime contractors for the competitive Project Definition phase are Matra BAe Dynamics (UK) Ltd. and Bofors Carl Gustaf AB (Sweden).

  12. Formation Battle Management System (FBMS)—The original and current ISD is 2002. The project is, however, linked with BOWMAN and revisions to that programme could impact on the ISD of FBMS. The current estimated costs are £74 million with peak expenditure in years 2001–02 to 2004–05. The prime contractor is British Aerospace Defence Systems Ltd.

  13. Theatre Wide Area Communications Network (TWACN)—The TWACN original and current ISD is 2002. The cost estimate is commercially sensitive and is withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Expenditure is likely to peak in 2001–02 to 2004–05 once a prime contractor has been identified.

  14. Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA)—The original and current ISD is 2012. Overall FCBA numbers and hence the total cost of the programme, which could be in the region of £5 billion to £7 billion, have yet to be determined. Peak expenditure is likely to occur in 2013–14 and 2014–15. We are participating in the Concept Demonstration Phase (CDP) of the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme. Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the prime contractors for JSF CDP, with several UK companies as sub-contractors. We are also undertaking feasibility studies covering navalisation of Eurofighter, other potential solutions and various ship/aircraft interface issues. A number of contracts have been placed with UK industry as part of these UK feasibility studies.

  15. Future Amphibious Support Helicopter (FASH)—The provisional ISD is 2008. The current estimate of costs is around £1 billion with peak expenditure estimated to be in years 2009–10 to 2010–11. The prime contractor is not yet known.

  16. SCOT Capability Upgrade (SCUG)—The original ISD was 2004. The current ISD is 2005. The cost estimate is commercially sensitive and is withheld under
  454W
  exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Expenditure is likely to peak in 2005–06 and 2006–07. A prime contractor has yet to be identified.

  17. Naval EHF Satellite Terminal (NEST)—The original ISD was 2004, the current ISD is 2005. The cost estimate is commercially sensitive and is withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Expenditure is likely to peak in 2004–05 and 2005–06. A prime contractor has yet to be identified.

  18. Electronic Warfare Database and Rapid Reaction Facility—There is at present no formal user requirement for this programme.

  19. Sonar 2087—The original ISD was 2003. The current ISD is 2004. Current estimated cost is around £390 million with peak expenditure expected in years 2003–04 and 2006–07. The prime contractors are Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd. and Babcock Defence Systems.

  20. EW 2000—The original and current ISD is 2006. Cost estimates are commercially sensitive and withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Likely peak years of expenditure are 2003–04 to 2005–06. A prime contractor has yet to be identified.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to ensure that the current terms of service of young people in the armed forces are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. [100122]

  Mr. Spellar
  In line with other public authorities, my Department is taking steps to ensure that all personnel policies will be compatible with the main provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 when they fully come into force on 2 October 2000.

  Smart Procurement Initiative
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Smart Procurement Initiative. [101194]

  Mr. Hoon
  This initiative, which is at the heart of our efforts to reform the way we procure and support defence equipment, is currently being implemented. The programme to roll out Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) with full industry participation is on course; all the teams will be fully operational by April 2000. The design and implementation of new arrangements to ensure effective relationships between IPTs, their new Equipment Capability Customer in MOD Headquarters and the Front Line Commands is also making excellent progress. We remain on track to achieve savings of £2 billion to which we are committed.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research

  455W
  results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100146]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The Ministry of Defence conducts research on a wide range of matters. Details are not all recorded centrally, but information available indicates that since May 1997 the Ministry of Defence has placed over 740 research contracts at a total value of over £250 million, excluding those let by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). DERA has, in addition, placed some £300 million worth of extramural contracts on behalf of the Department. The total number of DERA contracts placed is not readily available. I am withholding the value of individual research contracts under exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, as this information is commercially sensitive.

  The Department generally retains control over the publication of research results, and the date of publication, except where ownership of results of work has been vested in contractors. There is no prohibition on publication except where justified under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. MOD and DERA would not seek to change the results of research.

  Departmental Staff Targets
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the seventh annual edition of the compendium of current staff targets and staff requirements. [101398]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The MOD is working towards publication, and aims to issue an updated Compendium early in the new year. Since publication of the last Compendium in September 1998, the Department has undergone major organisational change in the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review. We wish to ensure that the Compendium will represent an accurate view to industry of future equipment needs throughout the MOD.

  Iraq
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received regarding the demolition of Iraqi munitions at the Khamisiyah depot in March 1991 and its possible effect on British troops; and if he will make a statement. [102057]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government's 1997 'New Beginnings' policy statement set out the way forward for addressing the health concerns of Gulf veterans and included a statement of the MOD's commitment to review specific events in response to Gulf veterans' concerns that they were exposed to chemical weapons during the Gulf Conflict. The work reviewing the incident at Khamisiyah in March 1991 has now been completed and I am today publishing a detailed paper entitled "Review of the events concerning 32 Field Hospital and the Release of Nerve Agent Arising from US Demolition of Iraqi Munitions at the Khamisiyah Depot in March 1991". In conjunction with this I am also publishing a detailed paper to provide the background of how chemical warfare defence was organised in the UK during the Gulf conflict entitled 456W
  "British Chemical Warfare Defence During the Gulf Conflict 1990–91)". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  As a result of our review of the information on the Khamisiyah incident, we do not believe there is evidence that any UK troops were definitely exposed to Iraqi chemical agents on 10 or 11 March 1991. Although some British troops were located within the computer modelled composite plume footprint, such theoretical exposure would have been at a very low level. We judge that if such an exposure took place it would present no risk to health.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the United Kingdom exercised a national veto on proposed actions during NATO operations connected with Kosovo in 1999. [101336]

  Mr. Hoon
  The reply I gave to a similar question from the hon. Member on 30 November 1999,Official Report, column 85W, explained that NATO decisions are taken by consensus and outlined the procedure for consultation by national commanders in support of Alliance decision-making. Releasing details of the applications of these processes in specific operations would be harmful to defence, security and international relations. I am therefore withholding the information requested in accordance with exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what articles of international law and international humanitarian law were used as the criteria for the United Kingdom's decisions establishing the legality of the choice of targets during the Kosovo conflict. [101335]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom complied with the requirements of international law in its conduct of air operations in the Kosovo conflict, including its obligations under Articles 48 to 58 of the First Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts and types of ordnance used(a) during the Kosovo conflict in 1999 and (b) over Iraq in 1999. [101337]

  Mr. Hoon
  During the period in question, the Royal Air Force used the following munitions in support of operations Allied Force and Bolton:

  Kosovo (Op Allied Force)

  226—Paveway II

  18—Paveway III

  531—RBL 755

  230–100016 Bombs

  6—Alarm

  Iraq (Op Bolton)

  125—Paveway II

  9—Paveway III.

  I am withholding the information requested in respect of the Royal Navy' s use of munitions during operation Allied Force under exemption 1 of the code of Practice on access to Government Information (National Security or Defence).

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what controls his Department exercises over the storage of nuclear weapons on private land. [101461]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence does not store nuclear weapons on private land.

  Uranium-based Munitions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the environmental effects of the use of uranium-based munitions by NATO forces in Kosovo. [101200]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government have not commissioned any assessment of the environmental effects of using such munitions in Kosovo but the Joint UN Environment Programme/UN Commission on Human Settlements issued its report "The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment" on 5 October 1999. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House. We are aware, however, of the concerns that have been expressed about the use of uranium-based munitions and have commissioned advice from officials within the Department on what further work we might do to improve our knowledge of how depleted uranium in ammunition behaves in the natural environment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mobile Phone Reception (Scotland)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those areas of the west coast of Scotland not covered for mobile phone reception. [99616]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is not collected.

  The cellular mobile operators have each met requirements to roll out services to an area in which at least 90 per cent. of the UK population lives. Aside from this requirement, the individual operators were free to make a commercial decision about their roll-out plans.

  Vodafone and BT Cellnet are jointly currently constructing a mobile infrastructure within the Highlands and Islands, working alongside the local enterprise council.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria were used in selecting wards eligible for assisted area status in Dumfries and Galloway; and what values were attached to each of the criteria for each ward. [100849]

  Mr. Caborn
  We used the criteria set out in Annex C of the "Government's Proposals for New Assisted Areas", which were published on 15 July. A copy was sent to every MP.

  The Government have not published ward-based information as it could be disclosive of personal information.

  ECGD
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the UK companies which have received support from the ECGD in each of the last five years. [100517]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: The companies are herewith listed.

  The lists do not include the thousands of UK sub-contracts who have benefited from ECGD cover provided either to a UK main contractor or to a bank which makes payment to a number of UK exporters on behalf of overseas buyers. They do however include the UK Branches of overseas companies who have been the beneficiaries of ECGD guarantees.

  List of UK companies receiving ECGD cover in 1994–95

  Air Products plc

  Allmakes Limited

  Alstom UK Limited

  BICC Cables Ltd. & BICC plc

  British Aerospace Defence Systems Ltd.

  British Aerospace Public Limited Co.

  British Steel Exports Ltd.

  Britten-Norman Ltd.

  Bronx Engineering Company Limited

  BWE Ltd.

  Crown Agents Services Limited

  Duntech Irrigation Services Limited

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  Fokker Aircraft BV

  General Electric Company plc

  Granger Telecommunication Systems Limited

  International Aeradio Ltd.

  International Generics Limited

  Kvaerner Construction International Ltd.

  Land Rover Exports Limited

  Marconi Communications International Ltd.

  Mivan Engineering Limited

  Nortel plc

  NWB Aerospace 100 Limited

  Park Air Electronics Limited

  Peter Brotherhood Ltd.

  Philip Harris International Ltd.

  Plasticisers Engineering Ltd.

  Racal Avionics Limited

  Racal Group Services Limited

  Racal Radio Limited

  Raytheon Systems Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Royal Ordnance plc

  Terex Equipment Ltd.

  TTSI Limited

  Weir Westgarth Ltd.

  Wellman Furnaces Ltd.

  Westinghouse Signals Ltd.

  York International Limited

  459W
  List of UK companies receiving ECGD cover in 1995–96

  Air Products plc

  Allen Power Engineering Ltd.

  Alstom Controls Limited

  Alstom Power Plants Limited

  Alstom T&D Distribution Switchgear Ltd.

  AMEC plc

  APV Baker Ltd.

  APV UK plc

  Balfour Beatty Limited

  Biwater International Limited

  British Aerospace (Systems & Equipment) Limited

  British Aerospace Defence Systems Ltd.

  Carnaudmetalbox Engineering plc

  Continental FSW Limited

  Crabtree of Gateshead Limited

  Crosrol Ltd.

  Crown Agents Services Limited

  Fletcher Smith Ltd.

  Flexsys Rubber Chemicals Limited

  GEC-Marconi In-flight Systems Overseas Limited

  General Electric Company plc

  Heaton Power Ltd.

  International Combustion Limited

  Invensys plc

  Jetstream Aircraft Inc.

  Kvaerner Construction Group Ltd.

  Lloyds TSB Bank plc

  MC (1999) Ltd.

  Marconi Communications International Holdings Ltd.

  Mirrlees Blackstone Ltd

  Mistui & Co. UK plc

  Nibek Ltd.

  Nortel plc

  PRCS Ltd.

  Procurement Services International Limited

  Racal Avionics Limited

  Reynolds Boughton (Devon) Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Royal Ordnance plc

  Sony Broadcast & Communications Ltd.

  VA Tech Peebles Transformers Limited

  Weir Pumps Ltd.

  List of UK companies receiving ECGD cover in 1996–97

  Airsys ATM Limited

  Alpha Airports Group plc

  Alstom UK Ltd.

  AMEC Power Limited

  APV Baker Ltd.

  APV UK plc

  Atlas Converting Equipment plc

  AVO International Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty Construction International Limited

  Balfour Beatty Limited

  Biwater International Limited

  Bovis International Ltd.

  Britech Europe Ltd.

  British Aerospace (Military Aircraft) Limited

  460W

  British Aerospace Defence Systems Ltd.

  British Aerospace Public Limited Co.

  British Aerospace Regional Aircraft SA

  BTR plc

  Cadbury Schweppes plc

  Clarke Chapman Limited

  Clifton & Baird Limited

  Crosrol Ltd.

  Davy McKee (Poole) Ltd.

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  EFCO Ltd.

  Fenner International Ltd.

  Fokker Aircraft BV

  Foster Wheeler (GB) Ltd.

  General Electric Company plc

  General Vacuum Equipment Limited

  Harlow Chemical Company Limited

  Heaton Power Ltd.

  Houchin Aerospace Ltd.

  HSBC Bank plc

  IMI Overseas Investments Ltd.

  International Gas Apparatus Limited

  International Hospitals Group Ltd.

  Invensys plc

  Kvaerner Construction International Ltd.

  Kvaerner Process Technology Ltd.

  Land Rover Exports Limited

  Lloyds TSB Bank plc

  M. W. Kellogg Limited

  Marconi Communications International Holdings Ltd.

  Marubeni Europower Ltd.

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd.

  MB Overseas Investments Ltd.

  Merita Bank plc

  Mirrlees Blackstone Ltd.

  Motorola Ltd.

  National Power plc

  NCR Financial Solutions Group Ltd.

  Nokia Telecommunications Ltd.

  PRCS Ltd.

  Procurement Services International Limited

  Relay Engineering Services Ltd.

  Rieter-Scragg Limited

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Samplex Ltd.

  SHS Handling Systems Limited

  Simon Access (UK) Ltd.

  Standard Chartered Bank

  Sungard Business Systems Inc.

  Tate & Lyle Overseas Ltd.

  Thames Water Overseas Ltd.

  Thames Water plc

  T. H. Dixon & Co. Ltd.

  Tecquipment Ltd.

  Thompson Friction Welding Limiyrf

  Trafalgar House Construction (Asia) Ltd.

  VA Tech Peebles Transformers Limited

  Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Limited

  Weir Pumps Ltd.

  461W
  List of UK companies receiving ECGD cover in 1997–98

  AIC (Europe) Limited

  Airsys ATM Limited

  Alcatel Submarine Networks Ltd.

  Allen Power Engineering Ltd.

  Alstom Traction Ltd.

  Alstom UK Ltd.

  AMEC International Construction Ltd.

  AMEC Power Limited

  AMEC Property and Overseas Investment Ltd.

  Amphenol Limited

  APV Baker Ltd.

  APV Ltd.

  Atlantic Power & Gas Engineering Limited

  Aerotest plc

  Babcock King-Wilkinson Limited

  Balfour Beatty Construction International Limited

  Balfour Beatty Projects & Engineering Ltd.

  Balmoral Group Limited

  British Aerospace (Operations) Limited

  British Aerospace Defence Systems Ltd.

  British Aerospace Public Limited Co.

  British Aerospace Regional Aircraft SA

  BUPA Investment Overseas Ltd.

  Chemtech International Limited

  Chiyoda-Foster Wheeler Partnership

  Citibank NA

  Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited

  Continental FSW Limited

  Crabtree of Gateshead Limited

  Crosrol Ltd.

  Denco Ltd.

  Dunlop Oil & Marine Limited

  Ericsson Limited

  Eurotherm Process Automation Limited

  Fairbank Brearley Ltd.

  GE Energy (UK) Ltd.

  General Electric Company plc

  Houchin Aerospace Ltd.

  Kennedy & Donkin Ltd.

  Kvaerner Cleveland Bridge Limited

  Kvaerner Construction International Ltd.

  Kvaerner Metals Davy Ltd.

  Kvaerner Oilfield Products Limited

  Kvaerner Process (UK) Ltd.

  Land Rover Exports Limited

  Mabey & Johnson Ltd.

  Marconi (Projects) Ltd.

  Marconi Avionics Limited

  Marconi Avionics Overseas Limited

  Marconi Radar Projects Limited

  Matra Bae Dynamic (UK) Ltd.

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd.

  MC (1999) Ltd.

  Mitsui Babcock Energy Services Limited

  NSG Exports Limited

  Pirelli General plc

  Polygraphica Equipment Limited

  Purac Ltd.

  Racal Radio Limited

  462W

  Rieter-Scragg Limited

  Rockwell-Collins (UK) Limited

  Rolls-Royce (European Investments) Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Limited

  Rolls-Royce (Overseas Holdings) Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce Industrial and Marine Gas Turbines Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce plc

  Royal Ordnance plc

  Siemens plc

  SNC-Lavalin Europe Limited

  Spencer & Halstead Ltd.

  Standrange Ltd.

  Starfrost (UK) Limited

  Tate & Lyle Overseas Ltd.

  T. Giusti Ltd.

  Taylor Woodrow Construction Limited

  Thames Water International Services Ltd.

  Thames Water plc

  Trafalgar House Construction (Asia) Ltd.

  Tweedy Engineering Limited

  TWI/Skanska JV

  Tetra Pak UK Limited

  VA Tech Reyrolle Limited

  VA Tech Wabag UK Limited

  VAI Industries (UK) Ltd.

  Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Limited

  Webtex Limited

  Weir Westgarth Ltd.

  List of UK companies receiving ECGD cover in 1998–99

  ABB Alstom Power UK Ltd.

  ABN Amro Bank NV

  Adtranz Signal (UK) Ltd.

  AF-QPS Limited

  Allen Steam Turbines

  Alstom Automation International Ltd.

  Alstom UK Ltd.

  AMEC International Construction Ltd.

  ANZ Grindlays Export Finance Ltd.

  Balfour Beatty International Limited

  Balfour Beatty Limited

  Balfour Beatty Projects & Engineering Ltd.

  Balfour Kilpatrick Limited

  Banco Santander Central Hispano

  Baesema Limited

  Bechtel Limited

  Biwater International Limited

  Biwater plc

  Bricesco Limited

  Briggs of Burton

  British Arab Commercial Bank Ltd.

  British Aerospace Public Limited Co.

  BUPA Investments Overseas Ltd.

  Carmichael International Limited

  Chase Manhattan plc

  Coflexip Stena Offshore Limited

  463W

  Credit Lyonnais

  Dennis

  Deutsche Bank

  Dresdner Bank

  Edmund Nuttall Ltd.

  Fenner International Ltd.

  F. G. Wilson (Engineering) Ltd.

  GEC-Marconi Radar and Defence Systems Ltd.

  General Electric Company plc

  Invensys plc

  L. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.

  Klockner INA Industrial Plants Limited

  Kvaerner Construction International Ltd.

  Kvaerner Metals Davy Limited

  Kvaerner Process plc

  Land Rover Exports Limited

  Marconi (Projects) Ltd.

  Marconi Avionics Overseas Limited

  Marconi Communications International Limited

  Marconi Radar Projects Limited

  Matcon Limited

  Matra Marconi Space UK Ltd.

  MC (1999) Ltd.

  Mirrlees Blackstone Ltd.

  Mitsui Babcock Energy Ltd.

  Motherwell Bridge Projects Ltd.

  Nortel plc

  Paralloy Limited

  Posford Duvivier Consulting Engineers

  Racal Defence Electronics Limited

  Rolls-Royce Power Ventures (Ankara) Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce Power Ventures Ltd.

  Rolls-Royce plc

  SCS Shipping Ltd

  SHS Handling Systems Limited

  Siemens plc

  Sir William Halcrow & Partners Limited

  Speedex Engineering Limited

  Standrange Ltd.

  TBS Engineering Limited

  Trade Credit Finance No. 1 Limited

  Trafalgar House Construction (Asia) Ltd.

  USF Limited

  Vickers Engineering plc

  Vikoma International Ltd.

  Volvo Bus Export (UK) Ltd.

  Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Limited

  William Cook Burton Ltd.

  Wood Group Engineering Ltd.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of applicants in the following age bands who have made a claim for payment in respect of vibration white finger and chronic bronchitis and 464W
  emphysema aged (a) 49 and below, (b) 50 to 59, (c) 60 to 69, (d) 70 to 79, (e) 80 to 89 and (f) 90 years and above. [101048]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 30 November, the age breakdown of claims made by ex-miners in respect of claims for compensation for VWF and respiratory disease is as follows:

  Aged

  Number

  Respiratory disease claims received

  49 and below

  6,558

  50–59

  12,348

  60–69

  25,311

  70–79

  30,202

  80–89

  11,047

  90 and above

  2,556

  VWF claims received

  49 and below

  15,780

  50–59

  13,364

  60–69

  14,382

  70–79

  8,414

  80–89

  925

  90 and above

  20

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 30 November; and if he will make a statement. [101168]

  Ms Hewitt
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council on 30 November which adopted a Directive on a Common Framework for Electronic Signatures. I welcomed this as a major step forward towards clarifying the legal framework for electronic commerce.

  In addition the Commission presented a number of recent Communications which were followed by preliminary exchanges of views.

  In presenting the fifth report on implementation of the telecommunications regulatory package the Commission drew attention to progress towards implementation of the existing package of telecoms liberalisation legislation, and concluded that the successes of the existing regulatory framework had led to market growth with increased competition and lower tariffs. The Commission also drew attention to the remaining barriers to a single European market in telecoms, including a comparatively low level of harmonisation of Community licensing and interconnection regimes, incomplete implementation by some member states of Community cost accounting provisions, and the lack of competition in local access markets in all member states. Member states approved this general analysis.

  There was a first debate on the Commission Communication on the review of the regulatory framework for electronic communications. In presenting the Communication the Commission summarised its approach to the review of the regulatory package which would apply to all electronic communications systems and said it would report on the outcome of its public consultation in April before making legislative proposals in May. In the following debate all member states

  465W
  recognised the need for swift action in the face of the pace of technological change, and simplification of the regulatory framework. A number, including the UK, stressed the need for a flexible framework with a minimum of regulation. I emphasised that strengthening competition in the market for communications services is vital to produce an environment in which e-commerce can flourish in Europe, and welcomed the Commission's recognition that regulation should be on a co-regulatory basis with business where possible. The Council adopted Conclusions endorsing the Commission's principles for the new regulatory framework as set out in its Communication.

  The Commission also presented its Communication on the results of its public consultation on its Green Paper on radio spectrum policy. The Commission summarised the outcome of its consultation and the areas in which it indicated future legislative proposals. There was no discussion of the Communication: the Presidency concluded that the Council noted the Commission's intentions which would require further study when specific legislative proposals emerged in 2000.

  There was also a debate on the information society of the future and how to build trust and create effective rules for electronic commerce. The Commission will produce guidelines on the use of self-regulation in this area for discussion at the Information Society meeting in Lisbon in April 2000.

  The Council also noted, without discussion, the Commission Communication on implementation of Directive 97/47/EC on advanced TV standards. The

  Applicant

  Project

  Professor I. G. Priede

  Aberdeen

  Autonomous Marine Environment Research Stations (AutoMERS)

  Professor P. St. J. Russell

  Bath

  Photonic Crystal Fibres: Fabrication, Technology and Applications

  Professor H. R. Saibil

  Birkbeck

  Equipment and Refurbishment for Electron Cryomicroscopy and Protein Crystallography

  Professor M. N. R. Ashfold

  Bristol

  Materials, Physical and Computational Chemistry for the 21st Century

  Professor R. J. Mair

  Cambridge

  Centre for Geotechnical Process and Construction Modelling

  Professor D. M. Glover

  Cambridge

  Cell Biology and Drosophilia Research in the Cambridge University Genetics Department

  Professor Sir John Gurdon

  Cambridge

  Relocation and upgrading of Wellcome CRC Institute

  Professor P. Sissons

  Cambridge

  Biology and Pathogenesis of Virus Infections

  Professor T. W. Robbins

  Cambridge

  Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience

  Professor D. G. Crighton

  Cambridge

  Centre for Mathematical Sciences

  Professor A. J. Moses

  Cardiff

  Production, Evaluation and Applications of Advanced Soft Magnetics Materials and Devices

  Professor A. I. Lamond

  Dundee

  Dundee Centre for High Resolution Imaging in Cell and Molecular Biology

  Professor R. W. Richards

  Durham

  Multi-disciplinary Condensed Matter Chemistry

  Professor T. D. Jickells

  UEA

  Laboratory for Global Marine and Atmospheric Chemistry

  Dr. K. J. Heywood

  UEA

  Sampling Equipment for the UK Marine, Physics and Chemistry Community

  Professor R. D. Kenway

  Edinburgh

  A World-Leading Computing Facility for Simulations of the Strong Interaction

  Professor P. J. Sadler

  Edinburgh

  Edinburgh Protein Interaction Centre (EPIC)

  Professor N. P. Franks

  ICSTM

  General Anaesthesia: From Molecular Actions to Neuronal Pathways

  Professor M. Van Heel

  ICSTM

  An Integrated Multi-Disciplinary Centre for Solving Biopolymer Structures

  Professor P. McGuffin

  KCL (Institute of Psychiatry)

  The Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Research Centre at the Institute of Psychiatry

  Professor M. B. Steer

  Leeds

  Microwave and Millimetre-Wave Design and Instrumentation Facility

  Dr. M. C. Bell

  Leeds

  Leeds Health Air Pollution, Noise, Health and Emissions Research Network (LANTERN)

  Professor P. K. H. Maguire

  Leicester

  The Acquisition of Seismic Recording Systems to study "Rifting Processes: Inception, Transition and Spreading"

  Professor P. P. Allport

  Liverpool

  The Liverpool Semiconductor Detector Centre

  466W
  Commission also provided an oral update on member states' preparation for the Millennium Bug in energy, transport and other fields.

  Post Office White Paper
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will define the phrase, "undue cross-subsidy", in paragraph 28 of the Post Office White Paper. [101289]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The phrase "undue cross-subsidy" refers to any cross-subsidy from the monopoly to non-monopoly services which is intended or has the effect of being a breach of competition rules. It will be for the Postal Services Commission to regulate this and to make decisions based on the facts of any particular case.

  Joint Infrastructure Fund
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to announce awards from round 2 of the Joint Infrastructure Fund. [101685]

  Mr. Byers
  I have today announced jointly with the Wellcome Trust and the Higher Education Funding Council for England details of the awards from round 2 of the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF). Over £320 million has been awarded to 45 successful applicants across 27 universities across the United Kingdom.

  The projects awarded funding cover the broad spectrum of science and engineering. They range from projects costing £750,000 to over £30 million.

  There are a further 3 rounds of the JIF with decision points in March and November 2000 and March 2001.

  Details of the individual awards announced today are as follows:
  467W

  Applicant

  Project

  Professor J. S. Metcalfe

  Manchester

  Manchester Federal School Interdisciplinary Faculty for Management Research

  Professor D. J. Vaughan

  Manchester

  Research Centre in Molecular Environmental Science

  Professor A. J. Lyne

  Manchester

  Lovell Telescope—Forward to the 21st Century

  Professor M. P. Young

  Newcastle

  Visual Neuroecology

  Professor A. Ekert

  Oxford

  Interdisciplinary Centre for Quantum Information Processing

  Dr. A. Cooper

  Oxford

  Ancient Biomolecules Centre

  Professor W. G. Richards

  Oxford

  Chemistry Research Laboratory

  Dr. B. T. Huffman

  Oxford

  Tevraton—Quick Access Resources for Computing T-Quarc

  Professor R. A. North

  Sheffield

  Integrated Research in Molecular Life Sciences: co-ordinating Structural Biology, Developmental Genetics, Molecular Physiology and Molecular Microbiology

  Professor D. J. Read

  Sheffield

  Plant Environmental Interactions: Scaling between Genes and Ecosystems

  Dr. N. J. C. Spooner

  Sheffield

  British Underground Facility for Dark Matter and Neutrino Studies

  Professor M. Bradley

  Southampton

  Combinatorial Centre of Excellence

  Professor M. F. Land

  Sussex

  Refurbishment of Sussex Centre for Neuroscience

  Professor E. A. Hinds

  Sussex

  Centre for the Measurement of Particle Electric Dipole Moments

  Professor P. R. Jonas

  UMIST

  An Instrumented Aircraft Facility for Atmospheric Research within the UK University Community

  Professor L. E. Davis

  UMIST

  Electromagnetics Centre for Microwave and Millimetre-Wave Design and Applications

  Professor J. Collinge

  UCL

  Neurodegenerative diseases—from Molecule to Clinic

  Professor L. K. Borysiewicz

  Wales (College of Medicine)

  Centre for Biomedical Research

  Professor D. Bowles

  York

  Creating a New Research Infrastructure for Biosciences

  Professor S. K. Bhattacharya

  Warwick

  Warwick Design and Innovation Research Centre (Innovative Manufacturing Centre Phase 3)

  Note:

  The JEC approved a total of 45 awards but support for one of these is dependent on a further site visit. Details of this award have therefore not been announced yet.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on plans for operating the national minimum wage. [101509]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government asked the independent Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the operation of the national minimum wage, with particular reference to its impact on pay, employment and competitiveness in low paying sectors and small firms. I look forward to reading the Commission's findings, which will be included in their report to the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later this month, and we will consider carefully the recommendations it makes.

  Entertainment Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the Employment Relations Act 1999 on the working of the entertainment industry. [101087]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No regulatory proposal which has an impact on businesses, charities or voluntary bodies is considered by the Government without a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, a clear analysis of who will be affected and an explanation of why non-regulatory action would be insufficient. These effects are examined in Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs), which are published with legislative proposals.

  The RIA which accompanied the Employment Relations Bill calculated a total recurring annual compliance cost to business of £60 million. No figures were prepared for individual sectors such as the entertainment industry. The Act's impact on an individual
  468W
  sector will depend on the scope of existing provision in that sector, whether this provision exceeds the statutory minimum in the Act, and the extent to which individuals take up their rights. However, views were received on the legislation from both management and unions in the entertainment sector.

  The compliance costs need to be set against the benefits which the Act is expected to bring, contributing to improvements in employment relations across the economy, stimulating a more co-operative approach and thus contributing to enhanced economic performance, and helping people achieve a better balance between work and family life, with wider long term social benefits.

  PLCs (German Takeovers)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public limited companies in the UK have been taken over by companies based in Germany in each of the last three years. [101360]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 7 December 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your question on the number of public limited companies in the UK that have been taken over by companies based in Germany over the last three years. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.

  469W
  The ONS extracts information about acquisitions and mergers from detailed scanning of specialist journals and the financial press. We therefore tend to identify only the larger and/or more newsworthy acquisitions. The figures below may therefore understate the scale of German acquisitions of UK companies.

  Year

  Number of British Companies taken over

  1997

  5

  1998

  1

  1999 first three quarters only

  4

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC World TV
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the removal of current affairs and analysis from BBC World TV programming. [99965]

  Janet Anderson
  We have received three representations from hon. Members and their constituents. I am afraid however it is a longstanding principle that the Government do not intervene in the BBC's programming and editorial issues, which are matters for the BBC Board of Governors.

  ITV Franchises
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his policy is in respect of the amalgamation of companies holding ITV franchises. [101458]

  Janet Anderson
  Media mergers are subject to general competition law as well as specific ownership provisions under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. These are matters for the Independent Television Commission and the Office of Fair Trading.

  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many press releases were issued by his Department in relation to the deferral of export licences for works of art(a) from May 1997 to June 1998 and (b) from June 1998 to date. [101853]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Between May 1997 and June 1998, 12 news releases were issued by the Department relating to the deferral of 20 export licences for cultural items.

  From June 1998 to date, 15 news releases were issued relating to the deferral of 24 such export licences.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to publicise his Department's publication, "Export of Works of Art 1998–99". [101852]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 216W, when I said that the Reviewing Committee's Annual Report for 1998–99 was published
  470W
  on that day, and that copies had been laid before Parliament. I also issued a news release on the same day announcing its publication.

  Lottery Terminals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) who will own the lottery terminals which his Department has decided should become obsolete; and what value has been put on them; [101515]

  (2) what extra costs will be incurred in terms of the provision of new lottery machines as a consequence of the decision that the existing ones should be replaced; and if this cost falls on (a) the sum available for good causes and (b) other budgets; [101517]

  (3) what were the installation costs of the initial batch of lottery terminals; and what (a) direct and (b) indirect costs were met from public funds; [101516]

  (4) who took the decision to scrap existing lottery terminals. [101514]

  Kate Hoey
  The decision to require the successful applicant for the new National Lottery licence to install new terminals was taken by the National Lottery Commission. The Commission is independent of Government.

  The National Lottery terminals are the property of the National Lottery operator, Camelot Group plc, and will remain Camelot's property when the current operating licence expires. My Department does not hold information on the installation costs or the present value of these terminals. The full cost of purchasing and installing the terminals was met by Camelot from its operating costs: no part of the cost of the terminals was met from public funds.

  The National Lottery Commission has a statutory responsibility to ensure that the National Lottery is run with all due propriety, to protect the interests of players, and subject to satisfying those two criteria, to maximise the amount the Lottery raises for good causes. The Commission took the view that a competition is the best way to ensure that the amount raised for good causes is maximised, and therefore insisted on new technology for National Lottery terminals to remove an obstacle to competition. The Commission's decision will have no impact on other budgets.

  Indemnity Undertakings
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given by departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six month period ended 30 September; and what was the value of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remained outstanding as at 30 September, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remained outstanding as at 30 September and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remained outstanding at 30 September. [102029]
  471W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain the conclusions of any study.

  In the six month period ended 30 September 1999, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Number

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  592

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  101

  The National Assembly for Wales

  61

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  18

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding is:

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1,625,435,897

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  480,066,111

  The National Assembly for Wales

  66,972,145

  Department for Education for Northern Ireland

  8,523,168

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1999 is:

  Value: £4,475,000.

  The value of non-statutory Undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September 1999 is:

  Value: £274,848,263.

PRIME MINISTER

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many times the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee has met in 1999; [101212]

  (2) when he expects the next meeting of the Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee to take place; and what will be on the agenda. [101214]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 5 July 1999,Official Report, column 362W.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98690]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers are required, under the Ministerial Code and "Travel by Ministers", to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. For information on spend on the Government Car Service, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 255–56W.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years. [99147]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 255–56W. This gave details of providing the Government Car Service, which included the costs for Ministers and Ministerial private office expenditure in DETR. All travel undertaken by civil servants in the Department complied with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  The amount paid for other civil servants transport was not retained separately from other travel expenditure on the previous Department of Transport Accounting system which was in use until end of March 1999 so that a combined total for the two Departments for previous years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) Ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years. [99148]

  Mr. Hill
  Ministers, when travelling on official business, may use a private car instead of an official car, and claim mileage allowance in the same circumstances and on the same terms as their civil servants. Use of public transport is encouraged. The Department's aim of minimising journeys by car to reduce the environmental impact of transport activity has been publicised widely. Where public transport is available but a private car is used, a single flat rate of 24 pence per mile is payable. Where it is impracticable to use public transport, payment for the use of a private car is at the rate of 40 pence per mile for the first 4,000 miles regardless of engine size, and 24 pence per mile after that. Claims for payment have to confirm that each journey was arranged in the most cost effective way.

  The amount paid for motor mileage was not retained separately from other travel expenditure on the previous Department of Transport accounting system so that a combined total for the two Departments could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Motorcycles (Child Passengers)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children aged under 16 years regularly travelled as motorcycle pillion passengers in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [100012]

  Mr. Hill
  No estimate is available. The number of children identified in the National Travel Survey making journeys as motorcycle pillion passengers over the last five years has been too small to give any estimate for the population as a whole.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured whilst riding as a passenger on a motorcycle, in each of the last 10 years. [100010]

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

  Child motorcycle pillion casualties by severity: GB 1989–98

  Casualties

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  All

  1989

  0

  66

  148

  214

  1990

  6

  51

  147

  204

  1991

  1

  34

  108

  143

  1992

  1

  36

  122

  159

  1993

  2

  53

  130

  185

  1994

  2

  54

  138

  194

  1995

  0

  46

  170

  216

  1996

  1

  51

  130

  182

  1997

  3

  48

  137

  188

  1998

  0

  34

  141

  175

  Corporate Assets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the value of land and property (i) in Scotland, (ii) in the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) in total within the responsibility of(a) the British Railways Board, (b) the British Waterways Board, (c) the Civil Aviation Authority and (d) London Regional Transport (including assets under construction); and what is the value of (1) plant and equipment, (2) vehicles and rolling stock, (3) investments and (4) other moveable assets held by each of these bodies. [99823]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The table which has been placed in the Library sets out the value of land and property (including assets under construction), plant and equipment, vehicles and rolling stock, investments and other assets within the responsibility of the respective bodies set out, as shown in their respective accounts for the year ended 31 March 1999. All figures relate to the group and to the United Kingdom. There were no properties held overseas. Where appropriate, the figure in respect of Scotland has been separately identified. Unless otherwise stated there were no investments held. The net book value should be considered to be current values as at 31 March 1999.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the current estimated value of land and property in (i) Scotland, (ii) the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas, and (iv) in total 474W
  within the responsibility of (a) the Audit Commission, (b) the British Board of Agreement, (c) the Commission for the New Towns, (d) the Countryside Commission, (e) English Nature, (f) English Partnerships, (g) the Environment Agency, (h) general lighthouse authorities, (i) Trinity House Lighthouse Service, (j) Northern Lighthouse Board, (k) the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, (l) housing action trusts, (m) the Housing Corporation, (n) the Joint Nature Conservancy Committee, (o) the National Forest Company, (p) the Rural Development Commission, (q) the Traffic Director for London and (r) urban development corporations. [99811]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Although not separately identified between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, information on the values of land and property is contained in the tangible fixed assets note of the individually published audited accounts of the bodies concerned. These accounts, which are published either as a White Paper Accounts or in the form of a glossy version, have been laid before Parliament and are available in the Library for inspection. Any additional information could not be provided without delay and without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the current value of land and property in (i) Scotland (ii) the United Kingdom (iii) overseas (iv) total within the responsibility of the(a) Coastguard Agency, (b) Driving Standards Agency, (c) Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency, (d) Highways Agency, (e) Marine Safety Agency, (f) Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency, (g) QEII Conference Centre, (h) Vehicle Certification Agency and (i) Vehicle Inspectorate. [99813]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The table which has been placed in the Library sets out the value of land and property within the responsibility of the respective bodies set out, as shown in their respective audited accounts for the year ended 31 March 1999. Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency formally merged on 1 April 1998. Their figures therefore appear combined. For the avoidance of doubt I should mention that the Driving Standards Agency, the Vehicle Inspectorate and the QEII Conference Centre are trading funds and not executive agencies of DETR. Value information for the Highways Agency is being developed as part of the implementation of resource accounting; this information is currently being audited and is not available. All figures are for the United Kingdom and none for overseas. Where appropriate, the figure in respect of Scotland has been separately identified. The net book value should be considered to be current values as at 31 March 1999.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the current estimated value of land and property in (i) Scotland, (ii) the United Kingdom (iii) overseas and (iv) in total within the responsibility of DETR central; and if he will further list the value of moveable assets within DETR central. [99812]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The table which has been placed in the Library sets out the value of land and property within the responsibility of DETR central and the value of other assets as shown in the Department's dry run resource

  475W
  accounts for the year ended 31 March 1999. The first year of published resource accounts will be in respect of 1999–2000. All figures relate to England and Wales. No assets are held by DETR Central in Scotland or overseas. The net book value should be considered to be current values as at 31 March 1999.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the value of land and property (i) in Scotland, (ii) in the United Kingdom, (iii) overseas and (iv) in total held by the Ordnance Survey; and what is the value of moveable assets and other assets held by this body. [99824]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: Estimates are as follows:

  £

  (i) Value of land and property held by Ordnance Survey in Scotland

  10

  (ii) Value of land and property held by Ordnance Survey in the United Kingdom

  14,950,000

  (iii) Value of land and property held by Ordnance Survey overseas

  0

  (iv) Value of land and property held in total by the Ordnance Survey

  214,950,000

  (v) Value of moveable assets and other assets held by Ordnance Survey

  10,328,000

  1 All office accommodation in Scotland is rented

  2 Same as (ii)

  A31
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to increase traffic flow during the current road works on the A31 in the New Forest particularly during weekends; when he expects the road works to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [100522]

  Average local reference rents, Greater Manchester and Cheshire

  Weekly rent (£)

  Accommodation with four rooms

  Accommodation with five rooms

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Greater Manchester

  71.00

  71.37

  72.20

  19.17

  79.17

  80.81

  Manchester

  74.17

  71.01

  75.55

  83.34

  80.45

  85.63

  Stockport

  87.23

  86.96

  86.83

  93.73

  95.04

  93.25

  Oldham

  58.40

  60.14

  60.59

  60.66

  64.16

  64.96

  Tameside

  75.67

  79.61

  76.00

  78.94

  80.02

  81.48

  Bolton

  63.34

  67.31

  66.64

  68.08

  72.22

  71.90

  Rochdale

  60.10

  63.35

  63.88

  62.27

  69.80

  68.41

  Trafford

  84.71

  86.90

  87.82

  89.32

  92.91

  92.49

  Bury

  59.74

  66.21

  66.23

  63.88

  67.80

  70.73

  Salford

  64.64

  66.39

  67.18

  68.81

  71.58

  72.87

  Wigan

  60.31

  66.03

  65.49

  63.67

  69.57

  70.38

  Cheshire

  83.72

  88.70

  88.73

  89.94

  99.25

  97.09

  Congleton

  177.89

  182.67

  183.76

  176.37

  192.86

  191.51

  Macclesfield

  115.90

  125.92

  121.59

  1122.85

  1139.16

  1127.87

  Crewe and Nantwich

  67.62

  71.28

  71.50

  78.55

  178.04

  81.92

  Vale Royal

  80.44

  190.31

  93.22

  189.53

  1102.81

  1105.92

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  180.03

  183.72

  80.00

  184.65

  199.18

  185.94

  Warrington

  84.88

  87.41

  93.08

  192.50

  198.67

  1103.81

  Chester

  95.38

  1105.99

  100.03

  195.22

  1115.21

  1109.81

  Halton

  74.32

  77.94

  77.49

  180.57

  183.90

  184.68

  1 Number of cases fewer than 100

  Source:

  Rent Officer returns
  476W
  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 7 December 1999:
  The Transport Minister, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about roadworks on the A31 in the New Forest.
  It is not possible to relax the traffic restrictions on the A31 between Picket Post and Stoney Cross at this stage of the works. Traffic management has been designed to allow for maximum lane availability during peak periods. Greater traffic restrictions are needed at other times to allow the resurfacing and bridge maintenance works to be done safely.
  During weekdays, two lanes are provided at peak times in the direction of greatest demand. At weekends, two lanes are provided eastbound from 1600 hrs to 2000 hrs. At all other times, a contraflow of one lane in each direction is used.
  The work is due to be completed by 12 December, weather permitting.

  Rents
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the standard reference rent established by the Rent Officer Service for each locality within Greater Manchester and Cheshire for four room and five room accommodation in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [100768]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available annual information is given in the table. Reference rents will differ from one year to the next because of differences in the type and condition of property covered each year. These figures are not included in the publication "Rent Officer Statistics" because the number of cases reported for each locality is too small a basis for reliable quarterly estimates.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if safety recommendations to be enacted in accordance with section 37 of the Cologne Conclusions will apply to the Channel Tunnel; and if cost compliance will be included by the UK delegates in working group negotiations. [100996]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Council has yet to consider any recommendations on tunnel safety. However, paragraph 37 of the Cologne Council conclusions refers to road tunnels. It therefore seems likely that any recommendations would not be directly applicable to rail tunnels such as the Channel Tunnel.

  The independent, binational Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, which oversees all matters relating to safety in the Channel Tunnel, has studied the various investigations into the Mont Blanc Tunnel fire and has identified no immediate or urgent safety implications for the Channel Tunnel. The Safety Authority will study with interest any recommendations the Transport Council may make, once they are published, to see whether they have any implications for the Tunnel.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the provision of direct rail services between the north west and the rest of Europe via the Channel Tunnel. [101347]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: Such services are the subject of an extensive independent review, the results of which the Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering. A statement will be made in due course.

  Road Surfacing
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the value of porous asphalt road surfacing as a means of reducing spray in wet weather. [101136]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Richard Thorndike to Mr. Bob Blizzard, dated 7 December 1999:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the value of porous asphalt roads surfacing as a means of reducing spray in wet weather. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive, Peter Nutt.
  Research undertaken by the Highways Agency has assessed the value of using porous asphalt road surfaces, including the benefit of reduced spray. Work carried out in the 1980's has shown that porous asphalt can reduce spray by as much as 95 per cent. compared to conventional asphalt when new. This reduces to approximately 30 per cent. after about three years due to the clogging of the porous asphalt from road detritus. The reduction in spray and the better visibility it offers drivers in wet weather, could be expected to reduce accidents when using porous asphalt compared with conventional surfacing.
  However, surveys carried out for the Highways Agency indicate that vehicles travel faster on porous asphalt in the wet than on conventional surfacing which increases the risk of accidents. This work is supported by an extensive accident survey report from the Netherlands. Where porous asphalt is widely used. Their survey demonstrates that porous asphalt was no safer than conventional
  478W
  surfacing. This was attributed to motorists driving at higher speeds on porous asphalt than conventional surfacing due to reduced spray and better visibility. The results of limited work undertaken by the Highways Agency are consistent with evidence collected in Holland.
  As part of a strategy to reduce impact of road noise the Highways Agency is carrying out research into alternative types of low noise road surfacing. As a result, new types of surfacing are now being introduced, some of which are often confused with porous asphalt, given their spray suppressing properties. Research on porous asphalt and the new road surfaces is continuing and will include monitoring spray reduction and the benefits offered.
  If it would be helpful, Graham Bowskill, our Head of Civil Engineering, would be pleased to discuss the performance of porous asphalt and other road surfacing with you. His telephone number is 0171 921 4746.

  Petrol Emissions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what emissions are produced from the use of a gallon of(a) unleaded petrol, (b) super unleaded petrol and (c) lead replacement petrol. [101093]

  Mr. Hill
  There is no fundamental difference in emissions produced by any of these grades of petrol, the primary combustion products being carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour. Combustion of one gallon will produce approximately 10.7 kg of CO2 and 4.3 kg of water. Small amounts of secondary combustion products can also be created, but the actual amounts will vary from vehicle to vehicle depending on the combustion efficiency of the engine in which the fuel is burned and the efficiency of any exhaust gas after-treatment that may be fitted. These secondary pollutants are mainly comprised of hydrocarbons (HC) arising from unburned or partially burned fuel, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulates. Depending on the level of sulphur in the fuel, sulphur compounds can also be produced. Other compounds, resulting from the use of fuel additives such as, for example, potassium that is used in lead replacement petrol, may also be emitted in trace concentrations.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the EDP costs, (b) accommodation and telephone costs, (c) London Transport finance and HR services charges and (d) PFI contract costs incurred by London Underground Ltd. in 1997–98. [100934]

  Mr. Hill
  Figures for these items were given in my answer of 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 673W.

  A more detailed breakdown of the costs referred to could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Seeboard Powerlink Consortium
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of high-tension and control cables(a) have been and (b) will be transferred to the Seeboard Powerlink consortium under the Power PFI contract. [100932]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the terms of the Power PFI contract, approximately 1,000 miles each of high-tension and control cables (covering the entire Underground network) transferred to Seeboard Powerlink on 16 August 1998.
  479W
  Seeboard Powerlink is responsible for the maintenance and renewal of these cables for the duration of the contract.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans have been agreed with the Seeboard Powerlink consortium for the retention of generating plant at(a) the Lots Road and (b) the Greenwich power stations. [100933]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the terms of the Power PFI contract, Seeboard Powerlink are working together with London Underground to close Lots Road Power station during 2001. Main power supplies for the Underground will then be obtained from the National Grid.

  For the duration of the contract, Seeboard Powerlink will require Greenwich Power station to provide emergency power in the event of a failure of supplies from the National Grid. Seeboard Powerlink is responsible for maintenance and renewal during this period.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many London Underground sub-station staff were transferred to the Seeboard Powerlink consortium under the terms of the Power PFI contract. [100931]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the terms of the Power PFI contract, 315 London Underground employees transferred to Seeboard Powerlink, including 148 sub-station staff.

  £ million

  CSR1 1999–2000

  Latest2 1999–2000

  CSR1 2000–01

  Latest2 2000–01

  CSR1 2001–02

  Latest2 2001–02

  Housing and other

  3,829

  3,665

  4,581

  4,422

  5,195

  5,032

  Regeneration (including New Deal for Communities)

  1,352

  1,443

  1,533

  1,621

  1,765

  1,849

  Transport

  2,880

  2,935

  3,231

  3,172

  3,673

  3,575

  London Transport, Rail Franchise Payments and CTRL

  1,670

  1,624

  1,238

  1,255

  1,367

  1,431

  Total DETR

  9,729

  9,666

  10,582

  10,470

  12,000

  11,888

  1 As published in Table 8.1 of Cm 4011 (Modern Public Services for Britain—Investing in reform).

  2 Post Summer Supplementary/Revised Estimates position.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the national minimum concessionary bus fare for pensioners has been budgeted for introduction before 2001–02. [100890]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Bill published on 1 December contains our proposals for the introduction of the standard minimum for local authority concessionary travel schemes for pensioners. The standard minimum concession cannot be implemented until the necessary primary legislation has been enacted, so the earliest practical introduction date will be 2001–02.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the titles of departmental reports being prepared for publication in the next 12 months, giving in each case the estimated date of publication. [100889]

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the changes made to Comprehensive Spending Review spending plans for his Department since July 1998. [100891]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following table sets out the spending plans within my Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) as published in July 1998 (Table 8.1 of Cm. 4011) compared to the position following the 1999–2000 Revised and Summer Supplementary Estimates. For subsequent changes I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) on 5 November 1999,Official Report, columns 346–49W, and the Supply Estimates 1999–2000: Winter Supplementary Estimates published on the 18 November.

  The changes between the CSR settlement and the present position for Housing and other and Regeneration, are the result principally of the establishment of the Regional Development Agencies (now included in the Regeneration line), which have taken over the administration of some programmes formerly included with Housing and other. The other changes are the cumulative result of a large number of: small technical (public expenditure classification) changes; transfers to and from other Departmental Expenditure Limits; and some minor transfers between programmes within my Department's DEL.

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions is preparing DETR Departmental Annual Report 2000, which will be published in spring 2000.

  A41 (Aylesbury)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the completion of the A41 Aston Clinton bypass on traffic(a) volumes and (b) flows on the A41 through Aylesbury. [101117]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Richard Thorndike to Mr. David Lidington, dated 7 December 1999:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, Keith Hill, to reply to your recent parliamentary question about the impact of the A41 Aston Clinton Bypass on traffic on the A41 through Aylesbury. I am replying in the absence of the Chief Executive, Peter Nutt.

  481W
  At present over 26,000 vehicles a day use the A41 through Aston Clinton. Our forecasts show that 70% of this traffic would divert onto the bypass. They also show that other local roads would not be adversely affected by the opening of the bypass nor would the A41 through Aylesbury.

  Railway Finances
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on(a) how the debts of British Rail are to be managed and (b) the borrowing powers available to the Strategic Rail Authority. [100885]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering these matters with the Chairman of the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority and the Treasury.

  Drivers (Mobile Phones)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to prevent drivers of motor vehicles from using hand-held mobile phones whilst they are driving. [100901]

  Mr. Hill
  Drivers are charged with dangerous driving (Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) or driving without due care and attention (Section 3 of that Act) if using a mobile phone causes them to drive in such a manner; or with failing to exercise proper control of a vehicle (Section 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

  Merseytravel Scheme
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the benefit of the Merseytravel concessionary fares scheme to the(a) elderly and (b) disabled. [101166]

  Mr. Hill
  I have not made any assessment of this scheme. It is for individual local authorities—in this case Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority—to decide whether to operate concessionary fare schemes and what level of benefit to provide.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to commission research on the needs of older single homeless people accommodated and rehoused via local authority homeless services. [101186]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data are already collected on older households accepted as homeless by local authorities. Overall, the total number of such households has declined from 6,060 in 1993–94 to 3,700 in 1998–99. During this same period the proportion of these households, compared to other households accepted as homeless, has declined from five per cent. to four per cent.1

  The Department has no plans for additional data collection or research in this area at present.
  1 DETR, Information Bulletin, September 1999, Statistics of Local Authority Activities Under the Homelessness Legislation: England Second Quarter of 1999.

  Greater London Authority
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for how long it is planned that the future Mayor of London will occupy the offices currently under conversion for him. [101155]

  Mr. Hill
  The Greater London Authority will remain in Romney House until the new headquarters building at London Bridge is completed. Negotiations on the agreement to lease and occupancy date are well advanced and I expect to make an announcement very shortly.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the budgeted cost is of converting offices for the future Mayor of London. [101154]

  Mr. Hill
  The temporary home of the new Greater London Authority in Romney House was selected from the Department's estate and it is anticipated that the cost of refurbishment will be around £2 million. The offices will be re-used by the Department once the GLA moves to its new headquarters building in London Bridge.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response there has been to the consultation on the paper, "The Shape of Things to Come", concerning the organisational structure for the Greater London Authority. [102116]

  Mr. Hill
  The GLA Transition Team, under Dr. Robert Chilton, has advised me on the responses to the consultation exercise, and I have agreed some minor changes to the organisational structure originally proposed. A response document, entitled "Shaping up for the Mayor and Assembly" has today been published. A copy will be placed in the House Library.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have met his target for recycling domestic waste. [101446]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no recycling target which each individual local authority is expected to meet. There is a national goal to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste as soon as possible, hopefully by 2005. By 2010 we hope to see 30 per cent. of household waste being recycled or composted, and in the longer term we hope to see a third of all households being dealt with in this way.

  Under our Best Value Initiative performance indicators are being developed for local authority waste services. From these, authorities will be expected to derive targets for their own performance on waste, having regard to any national goals we set in the forthcoming National Waste Strategy. I emphasise, though, that local targets should take account of local assessments of the Best Practicable Environmental Option, and will not therefore necessarily be at the same level as our national goals. I fully expect some authorities to put forward targets that exceed those that we propose, and others to put forward lower targets.
  483W
  From data supplied for the 1997–98 Municipal Waste Survey, it is clear that many authorities are doing excellent work on recycling and composting. From that data, the following authorities have recycling rates of 25 per cent. or over, and some are exceeding 30 per cent.:

  Adur District Council

  Chichester District Council

  Chiltern District Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  East Dorset District Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Havant Borough Council

  New Forest District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  South Bucks District Council

  Tandridge District Council

  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council

  Note:
  Recycling rates are calculated as the quantity of household waste collected for recycling, expressed as a percentage of total household waste. These calculations exclude recycling of building rubble, and make no allowance for home composting.
  In non-unitary areas, the figures cover amounts collected within the area by both the Waste Collection Authority and the Waste Disposal Authority. In most cases, figures for total household waste (apart from amounts collected for recycling) are taken from returns from Waste Disposal Authorities.
  I also know that a number of authorities who do not appear on this list have recently put in new schemes which are helping those authorities to be well on the way to achieving recycling rates over 40 per cent.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's liability for any health problems caused by the incineration of waste. [100942]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The setting and enforcing of high environmental protection standards for waste incineration is a priority for the Government. Incinerators in England (and Wales) are regulated by the Environment Agency or local authorities under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Whether a particular person or organisation would be liable for any damage caused by incineration would be for the Courts to decide in the circumstances of the particular case.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the incineration of waste on(a) the Government's national air quality strategy and (b) local authority air quality strategies; and if he will make a statement. [100944]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The recent review of the UK National Air Quality Strategy considered all stationary and mobile sources of air pollution, including waste incineration, in forecasting the future air pollution climate. A revised version of the Strategy is to be published shortly. Incineration plant are
  484W
  already tightly controlled under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 through which EU waste incineration legislation is also implemented.

  No national assessment has been made of the impact of incineration on local air quality strategies. In carrying out their local air quality management duties, however, local authorities will need to take account of the impact on air quality of any incineration processes in their areas. In drawing up any action plan or strategy to tackle local air pollution, authorities will wish to ensure that any additional reduction contributed by different sources (including any incineration processes) is balanced, proportionate and cost effective in relation to achieving the plan's objectives.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research the Government have commissioned into the possible risk to human health from the incineration of waste, indicating the publication date of each research document. [100943]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The following recent Government sponsored research has addressed possible risks to human health specifically in relation to waste incineration:
  Risk assessment of dioxin releases from municipal waste incineration processes HMIP/CPR2/41/1/181 Published by HMIP, 1996.
  Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain, by SAHSU, Elliott P, et al. Published in the British Journal of Cancer 1996 volume 73, pp 702–710. (A follow up study is to be published in the same journal early next year).
  A study of dioxins and furans in soil around four municipal waste incinerators in Hampshire, prepared by AEA Technology for the Environment Agency, 1996.
  Risks from BSE via environmental pathways, prepared by DNV for the Environment Agency, 1997.
  Health Effects of Waste Combustion Products, prepared by the Medical Research Council/Institute for Environment and Health for DTI, 1997.
  The Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants has also published a number of reports which are relevant to possible health effects of waste incineration. These are:
  Non-biological particles and health, Published 1995
  Asthma and outdoor pollution, Published 1995
  Quantification of the effects of air pollution on health in the UK, Published 1998.
  The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's Seventeenth Report on Incineration of Waste (Cm 2181, 1993) also considered health effects of waste incineration. The Department of Health/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Air Pollution Research Initiative is currently examining the effects on health of some products of combustion, including particles. A report for the Environment Agency on clinical waste disposal risk assessment is to be published shortly.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to ensure that the North West Regional Development Agency consults local authorities in non-assisted areas within the region. [101344]
  485W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: RDAs are expected to consult regularly with all local authorities in their regions and we will expect them to continue to consult on their activities as these progress.

  Most recently, the North West Development Agency consulted with local authorities and other regional partners in drawing up its regional strategy.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given to regional development agencies on discharging of their statutory obligation to promote sustainable development in their regional economic strategies. [101697]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance on the formulation of the strategies was issued to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) on 31 March 1999. This outlined how the RDAs should seek to meet their statutory duty under Section 4 of the RDAs Act 1998, to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK, where it is relevant to its area to do so.

  The guidance specifies that an appraisal of the contribution the strategy will make to sustainable development should be produced.

  In addition to the guidance on RDAs' strategies, the Government have issued supplementary guidance to advise the RDAs more fully on sustainable development issues.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the regional economic strategies of the regional development agencies will be monitored to ensure that the regional development agencies conform with statutory guidance(a) to take account of the needs of rural areas and (b) to promote sustainable development. [101698]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As set out in the guidance to RDAs on the formulation of their strategies, the Government Offices for the Region will provide the focus for an on-going dialogue with Government as each strategy develops and is reviewed. They will also provide a means of ensuring that each strategy enhances and supports national policies and programmes.

  Transport Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will complete his review of transport safety and accident investigation. [101846]

  Mr. Hill
  The review of transport safety arrangements, including accident investigation, is expected to be completed in the New Year.

  Radioactive Waste
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on recent EU legislation allowing member states to recycle low-level radioactive waste into consumer products. [101694]

  Mr. Mullin
  The EURATOM Basic Safety Standards Directive Euratom 96–29 imposes a high degree of radiological protection revising earlier Directives setting 486W
  basic safety standards for the protection of workers and members of the public against the dangers of ionising radiation. Article five of the Directive makes the disposal, recycling or re-use of radioactive substances subject to authorisation by the regulators.

  With most materials containing some radioactivity it is important to set thresholds in regulations below which materials will be treated as outside the framework of control. The Directive therefore permits member states to set levels of radioactivity below which materials can be disposed of, recycled and re-used without needing prior authorisation. This concept is known as clearance, with clearance levels setting a threshold at or below which the levels of radioactivity are small and pose negligible radiological risk, irrespective of the volume and fate of that material. The Government have recently issued a consultation document on implementation of the Directive including the issue of clearance levels. Responses to this are still being considered and Government proposals will be made in due course.

  In the UK, the sale or disposal of radioactively contaminated material is closely regulated by the Environment Agency (in England and Wales), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (in Scotland), and Department of Environment (NI) in Northern Ireland under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to ensure that the levels of radioactivity involved pose insignificant risk to human health or the environment.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the recycling of low-level radioactive waste into consumer products. [101695]

  Mr. Mullin
  In response to a leaflet run by the Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC) about concerns of contaminated materials being reused and recycled into consumer goods, the Department has received 28 letters, 14 of which have been replied to by Ministers and 14 by officials. In addition, in response to a recent consultation exercise on implementation of the revised Basic Safety Standards Directive Euratom 96/29, further representations in support of the LLRC were received.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has met with representatives of the LLRC when the matter of recycling low-level radioactive waste in consumer products was discussed.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to strengthen the regulation of rail companies to ensure that adequate rolling stock is provided on peak-time rail services in order to avert over-crowding. [101346]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: Train Operating Companies (TOCs) have a general obligation to avoid excessive overcrowding on all services. London commuter TOCs and TOCs providing some commuter services into Edinburgh are subject to annual counts of Passengers in Excess of Capacity (PIXC) and must not exceed 4.5 per cent. above capacity in either the morning or evening peak and 3 per cent. in the combined morning and evening peaks. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister issued the Franchising Director with new

  487W
  Instructions and Guidance on 29 September 1999 in which he asked him to deliver improvements in services through re-negotiation of the terms of franchise agreements.

  Blackpool to Manchester Line
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the electrification of the Blackpool to Manchester line. [101345]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: Railtrack have told me that they believe there is no business case for electrification of the Blackpool to Manchester line unless external funding is available. They also say that no interest has been shown from any train operating company.

  Brownfield Development
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the brownfield development sites in(a) Colchester borough and (b) Tendring district. [101631]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The information is not available centrally. Provisional estimates, from the National Land Use Database, of the total amount of previously developed land that may be available for redevelopment by Government Office Region were published last May in the Department's Information Bulletin 500.

  Landfill Gases
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Government-sponsored research there has been into the health effects of burning landfill gases in the last 10 years. [101434]

  Mr. Hill
  Last year the Department commissioned the Small Area Health Statistics Unit at Imperial College to carry out a national study of adverse health effects around landfill sites. The results of this study are anticipated in approximately 18 months time. In September this year my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Environment, launched a Government-funded research programme which will provide further information about potential harmful effects of substances which may be released from landfill sites.

  Water Resources
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which body is responsible for ensuring that there are sufficient water resources for future large scale development under regional planning guidance. [101433]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The consultation draft of Planning Policy Guidance Note 11—Regional Planning, published earlier this year, makes clear (para. 2.31) that the Regional Planning Bodies, in framing policies in draft Regional Planning Guidance, should consider with the Environment Agency and the water industry the availability of water resources. Regional Planning Guidance should help foster co-operation between local planning authorities, water
  488W
  companies and the Environment Agency to ensure that water supply sources are protected and that rates of development do not exceed the capacities of existing or planned water supply systems to meet projected demand.

  Public Transport Costs
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs of public transport in(a) London and (b) other European capitals. [101510]

  Mr. Hill
  The cost to the Government of supporting London Transport is recorded in the Annual Report of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Annual Report also gives the cost of supporting train services, though it is not possible to identify separately the cost of supporting train services in London.

  Costs incurred by London Transport in providing bus and underground services are published in their annual report and accounts.

  The Government do not maintain statistics on the finances of public transport systems in other European capitals.

  EU Structural Funds (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of the public sector in providing match funding for the Objective 1 Merseyside Programme for(a) the current programme and (b) the programme for 2000–2006. [101840]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Merseyside has run a highly successful Objective 1 programme in the current round, and the Government welcome the new Objective 1 programme which will bring in more than £850 million in European funding. This will bring new opportunities to stimulate economic growth and encourage increased investment and jobs.

  The position on match funding for the Objective 1 Merseyside Programme has not changed—it will continue to be the responsibility of grant applicants. This principle is an important element in ensuring local ownership and commitment, and helping integration of regional priorities and strategies. In this way, European funding is used alongside money already provided at the national and local level to help revitalise the area and achieve a better quality of life for those who live there.

  The Government have provided, and will continue to provide, significant financial support for Merseyside through a wide variety of programmes. These include the Single Regeneration Budget and New Deal for Communities, as well as mainstream programmes such as the Revenue Support Grant for local authorities. Local partnerships can prioritise the use of these resources to fund projects jointly with the Structural Funds, thereby boosting their impact.

  Regional partners can also seek to match their European funds with contributions from the voluntary and private sectors, as well as through loans from organisations such as the European Investment Bank.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Parental Rights
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will equalise the rights and the responsibilities of unmarried parents where both parents' names are given on the child's birth certificate and where there is financial commitment by both parents to the maintenance and welfare of the child. [101338]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 398W.

  Family Law
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will publish the report on the consultation on the document, Contact between Children and Violent Parents. [101507]

  Jane Kennedy
  The consultation paper on the question of parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence was issued by the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law in June 1999. The Advisory Board is an independent, advisory non-departmental public body. The consultation period was extended to 1 December and the responses are currently being collated for consideration by the Sub-Committee. The Advisory Board will consider in the new year the question of how and when the results of the consultation should be made public.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which organisations responded to the consultation document, Contact between Children and Violent Parents, produced by her Department's Advisory Board on Family Law; and what issues they raised. [101506]

  Jane Kennedy
  The consultation paper on the question of parental contact in cases where there is domestic violence was issued by the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law in June 1999. The Advisory Board is an independent, advisory non-departmental public body. Over 200 responses have been received and these are currently being collated and summarised for consideration by the Sub-Committee in the New Year. The Sub-Committee will consider the issues raised, the advice to be given and the question of how the results of the consultation should be made public.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in 1995–96 and 1996–97. [98715]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information my hon. Friend has requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information dating from the establishment of the Government Car and Despatch Agency in April 1997 490W
  is available, and I refer her to the answer provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 1 December 1999, Official Report, columns 255–56W.

  Special Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what changes he has made to the indicators of delay which have to be satisfied before a special payment can be considered since 1 May 1997; [101095]

  (2) if he will publish in respect of each benefit payable the indicators of delay which must be satisfied before a special payment can be considered due to late payment. [101096]

  Mr. Bayley
  No changes have been made to the indicators of delay which have to be satisfied before a special payment can be considered since 1 May 1997.

  The indicators of delay which must be satisfied in respect of each benefit before a special payment can be considered due to late payment are published in "Financial Redress for Maladministration". This document is available in every Local Office for the general public to read upon request. It is also available in the Library, at main public libraries and as a priced document from The Stationery Office bookshops.

  Work-focused Gateway
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend(a) private and voluntary sector involvement in and (b) call centre facilities to all the single work-focused gateway pilot projects. [100873]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to extend the private sector involvement or call centre facilities to the four 'basic model' pilots. The three pilot variants were chosen to test different methods of delivering the ONE service. We are monitoring the pilots carefully and have planned a full evaluation of the ONE service using qualitative as well as quantitative research.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what recent assessment he has made of the performance of the single work-focused gateway pilot project in Clyde Coast and Renfrew; [100874]

  (2) how many people (a) have attended an interview with a personal adviser and (b) been successfully placed in the employment option as part of the single work-focused gateway pilot project in Clyde Coast and Renfrew. [100875]

  Angela Eagle
  The early signs are encouraging; clients are pleased with the ONE service and the active support that it offers. It is helping people to make links with the labour market who might hitherto never have considered that work was even a possibility. It is not, however, meaningful to assess the pilots further at such an early stage or to draw any conclusions from the figures while the pilots are settling down. We are investing considerable resources in a thorough evaluation of the ONE service and when robust and reliable data are available we will make them public.

  Benefit Administrator
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in respect of all benefits payable the length of time which his Department expects to clear claims for that particular benefit. [101094]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mark Fisher to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 6 December 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about publication of benefit clearance times. As he is unavailable I am replying.
  The Benefits Agency Customer Charter, which was published on 29 November, sets out national standards for a range of activities that customers can expect the Agency's offices to provide. This includes the length of time the Agency expects to take to clear benefit claims made by the Agency's main client groups, i. e. those of working age, pension age, the disabled and children. It also takes account of the need to balance accuracy and speed.
  The information is set out in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Charter standards: Time taken for decisions on claims and change of circumstances

  Benefit

  Claims (working days)

  Income Support

  13

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  21

  Incapacity Benefit

  30

  Disability Living Allowance

  53

  Retirement Pension

  60

  Child Benefit

  30

  Income Support
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in the London Borough of Wandsworth are in receipt of income support. [101045]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 December 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of people living on the London Borough of Wandsworth on Income Support (IS).
  The information is not available in the format requested as the Benefits Agency does not collate information by local authority boundary. However, a figure can be obtained by identifying the postcode of customers living in the area.
  The number of IS claims from within the London Borough of Wandsworth is approximately 18,500. This represents the number of IS claims, not the total number of beneficiaries of those claims. It is rounded to the nearest hundred cases, and is subject to a degree of sampling error. The sample size was 5% of the IS live load, taken from the IS Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, August 1999.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Parental Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many non-resident parents are exempt from payment of child support maintenance under regulation 492W
  26 of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessment and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 on the grounds that they have the family premium included in the calculation or estimation of their protected income level. [101202]

  Angela Eagle
  There are 44,440 non-resident parents on benefit who are exempt from payment of child support maintenance under regulation 26 because they are receiving the family premium.

  Note:

  29,240 on Income-and 15,200 on income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Source:

  August 1999 scan of Income Support and JSA Computer Systems.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of parents with care who will have the level of their maintenance assessments reduced under the proposed changes to the child support scheme and are(a) not in receipt of tax credits, Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance and (b) in receipt of tax credits but have a child support assessment under the current rules of less than £15 per week. [101201]

  Angela Eagle
  We estimate that, of the parents with care whose current maintenance assessment is higher than the liability worked out using the new rates, there are around 140,000 who are not in receipt of tax credits, Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. On the same basis, there are around 10,000 parents with care who we anticipate will have a lower maintenance calculation under the new scheme who are receiving tax credit and have a child support assessment of less than £15 a week.

  Notes:

  1. New scheme maintenance modelled on August 1998 5 per cent. scan of the Child Support computer system.

  2. Caseloads calibrated to forecast "A" day levels and are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of disregarding the full amount of child support maintenance payment received in calculating entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit. [101203]

  Angela Eagle
  We estimate that the cost of fully disregarding maintenance payments in Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit would be about £30 million a year. This includes an estimate for the cost for cases who would become newly entitled as a result of the full disregard.

  Notes:

  1. Cost for existing claims based on data taken from May 1998 HBMIS dataset, a 1 per cent. survey of HB claims.

  2. Cost for cases who become newly entitled is calculated from data taken from 1996–97 Family Resources Survey uprated to 2000–01 prices, benefits and earnings levels.

  3. Costs and Caseloads are calibrated to forecast caseloads for 2000–01. The cost has been rounded to the nearest £l0 million.

  4. This cost will include a small element of spousal maintenance.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make the payment of council tax benefit and housing benefit faster and more efficient. [101367]
  493W
  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to driving forward improvements in the benefit services authorities provide so that they are faster, more accurate and more secure whilst also achieving value for money and taking account of the views and needs of local people. A comprehensive range of best value performance indicators for the delivery of Housing and Council Tax Benefit was included in the recent joint DETR and Audit Commission consultation exercise ("Performance Indicators for 2000/2001"). Indicators will be finalised by the end of 1999 and will cover the key aspects of local authorities' performance in delivering Housing and Council Tax Benefit.

  A number of initiatives are also currently being developed and implemented in partnership with local authorities to improve the efficiency and speed of Housing and Council Tax Benefit delivery.

  Remote Access Terminals are now installed in 346 local authorities. These terminals provide the authorities with direct access to relevant benefit information held by the Benefits Agency and contribute towards reducing the time it takes to process Housing and Council Tax Benefit claims.

  The Department has now completed piloting the Electronic Transfer of Data in 20 sites. This initiative, if implemented nationally, will remove the need for approximately 20 million paper transactions each year between Benefit Agency and local authority offices, while reducing transfer time to two working days.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the child benefit centre to write to all recipients of child benefit reminding them of their right to claim benefit in cash from their local post office; and if he will make a statement of his policy on encouraging benefit payments to be made by direct transfer to a local bank account. [101327]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 238W.

  We do not intend to take active steps to move customers on to automated credit transfer (ACT) before 2003. Until then, the Department will continue, in the normal way, to provide customers with the information they need on benefit payment options, and customers will continue, as now, to be able to choose between payment by order book at post offices and payment by ACT.

  Pensioners
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the numbers of those resident in North-West Norfolk who will or would benefit from and (b) the full-year cost to his Department of delivery to those people of (i) the increase in the basic state pension (1) as announced and (2) if it had been raised this year in line with the rise in earnings, (ii) the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, (iii) the £100 payment for pensioner households and (iv) the free television licence for those over 75 years. [101380]
  494W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not available at Parliamentary constituency level.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for introducing the free television licence for the over 75s.

  Benefits (Method of Payment)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in preparing for the transfer of benefits business from the Post Office to banks, what agreement has been reached with the banks to manage their branch operations consistent with the special needs of low income customers; [101607]

  (2) when benefits business is transferred from the Post Office to banks who will carry the liability for bank account charges, with particular reference to charges for ATM withdrawals. [101608]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have decided to move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. The Department will be arranging discussions with the banking industry on issues surrounding benefit recipients, charges and other matters in due course.

  Savings Limits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the value of suspended or party-paid endowment plans is taken into account in the calculation of savings for the savings limits in means-tested benefits. [101401]

  Mr. Bayley
  The surrender value of any policy of life insurance, including these types of policy, is disregarded in the assessment of entitlement to means-tested benefits (Income Support, Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit).

  PRIME Contract
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place a copy of the PRIME contract in the Library. [101841]

  Angela Eagle
  The PRIME contract contains not only technical data but also information of a commercially confidential nature. It is therefore subject to a confidentiality agreement between the Department and the contractor, Trillium. The Department will, however, take the matter forward with Trillium, with a view to obtaining an acceptable solution to the publication or disclosure of the document.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the PRIME contract with Trillium allows his Department to sub-let immediately surplus parts of the estate above the 2 per cent. per year which his Department is allowed to vacate without charge; [101842]

  (2) if the PRIME contract with Trillium allows his Department to sub-let surplus parts of the estate above the 35 per cent. which his Department may vacate without charge. [101843]
  495W
  Angela Eagle
  Now that the Department no longer owns any freehold accommodation, and has transferred the risk of all former leasehold properties to Trillium, we can no longer sub-let to the open market. We believe, however, that we have negotiated sufficient flexibility with this contract to meet our changing business needs.

  On 1 April 1998, at the outset of the PRIME contract just under 30 per cent. of the total estate (some 1,644,089 square metres including surplus space) was designated "flexible". This is accommodation which we are entitled to vacate over the course of the contract without charge.

  Up to 2 per cent. of this flexible space can be released each year with any unused allowance being carried forward until required. In addition to this, a further 10 per cent. of the total estate can be vacated subject to a charge, to cover Trillium's "unavoidable costs".

  Having already given back to Trillium some 10 per cent. of the estate that was surplus to requirements on day one of the contract, we effectively have a package in place that will allow us to vacate half of the entire estate.

  In the first year of the contract, however, only 1 per cent. of our flexible accommodation was returned to Trillium, so that we now have some 3 per cent. available for release this year. The current indication is that we will return around 0.5 per cent. before April, so, with the roll over allowance, we could feasibly give back 4.5 per cent. of space to Trillium in the third year of the contract.

  The Department is, therefore, well within the flexibility allowance. If a situation arose where we were ever in a situation that we had used up all flexibility in the contract, we could still attempt to return space to Trillium by negotiation or offer it to other Government Departments.

  Money Purchase Plans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total value of money purchase plans presented for annualisation or income drawdown plans was in(a) 1990, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998; and what value is estimated for (i) 1999, (ii) 2000 and (iii) 2004. [101844]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The total value of lump sums used to purchase pension annuities or income drawdown plans is given in the following table. The information does not distinguish between money purchase and other pension plans which are presented for annuitisation or income drawdown. The information on annuity purchase is only available from 1991 and the income drawdown information from 1996. No projections for future years are available.

  £ million

  New single premiums for pension annuities

  New single premiums for income drawdown plans

  1991

  2,450

  —

  1997

  4,300

  1,546

  1998

  5,620

  1,749

  Source:

  Association of British Insurers (ABI)

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to reply to the Question of 17 November (ref 98578) from the hon. Member for Hertsmere. [101696]

  Dr. Reid
  I replied to the hon. Member yesterday, 6 December 1999,Official Report, columns 365–66W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Engagements
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 November. [99851]

  Mr. Mandelson
  On the morning of 18 November I met with my Parliamentary Private Secretary; attended a Labour Party staff meeting; and attended Cabinet.

  In the afternoon I recorded a televised message for Voluntary Services Overseas, in connection with the launch of VSO's business partnerships; and I met the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Later, in Northern Ireland I attended a National Arts Collections Fund evening.

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98703]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministers are required—under the terms of the Ministerial Code, and Travel by Ministers—to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. For information on spend on the Government Car Service, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 255W. Additional amounts of £524,5931 and £557,700 were spent in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively for Northern Ireland Ministers.
  1 Excludes information on car hire charges which could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sectarian Attacks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) dates, (b) times and (c) location of each reported sectarian attack in Northern Ireland since 1 June, of which the RUC is aware, indicating those incidents following which persons have been charged. [100176]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: It is not possible to provide the information requested as crimes are not recorded as sectarian. However I am advised that between 1 June and 23 November 1999 there have been 11 attacks on church property, 17 attacks on school property, 17 attacks on Orange halls and one attack on GAA property.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made by Northamptonshire Health Authority in meeting the Government's targets to reduce waiting lists within the NHS. [100783]

  Mr. Denham
  Northamptonshire Health Authority is making excellent progress on reducing waiting lists in line with our targets set for the National Health Service.

  Inpatients

  At the end of October 1999, Northamptonshire Health Authority had a total inpatient waiting list of 13,223. Inpatient waiting figures in March 1997 for Northampton HA was 13,835, however these figures were collected on a district resident basis, whereas current figures are based on primary care group area.

  Employment Policies
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce more flexible and family friendly employment policies in the National Health Service. [100618]

  Mr. Denham
  The human resources framework Working Together sets out our determination to improve the quality of working lives for staff in the National Health Service. This year a resource pack called Working Lives was issued to all NHS employers to share good practice. A second resource pack is in preparation which will include lessons learnt from the retail sector on work schedules and rostering systems.

  In September this year Ministers launched a £1 million campaign called "Improving Working Lives in the NHS" as part of our wider agenda on supporting the family. Each region has appointed a high profile champion to lead a multi disciplinary task force to introduce more flexible and family friendly policies in the NHS. The "Improving Working Lives Champion" for Bolton North East is Kath Holbourn, Director of Nursing, Leighton Hospital, Middlewich Road, Crewe and can be contacted on 01270 612 351.

  A kite marking system will be developed to ensure that local organisations that perform well can be recognised. As a first step a draft set of principles outlining the values and characteristics of NHS organisations committed to these policies was published in September for consultation. Copies of the consultation booklet "Improving Working Lives in the NHS" have been placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to recruit nurses to, and retain nurses in, the National Health Service. [100607]

  Mr. Denham
  The comprehensive spending review allows the employment of up to 15,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors over the next three years and 6,000 more nurse training places. This year nurses received the biggest real terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years, and for the first time in five years the award was paid nationally, in full and with no staging from 1 April 1999.
  498W
  This year's £5 million nursing recruitment campaign attracted a very encouraging response with over 53,000 inquiries. Since the campaign began, over 2,000 nurses have already returned to employment in the National Health Service in England, with a further 2,000 in the pipeline. 57 per cent. of those who have returned so far have taken up part-time posts, which demonstrates how the NHS is providing more flexible family friendly employment opportunities for nurses who wish to return. The Department is running a campaign called "Improving Working Lives in the NHS" as part of the overarching human resource framework "Working Together". We have also taken steps to address racism and violence and to promote equal opportunities.

  The schools competition run this year also attracted a very encouraging response. The number of applications for nursing and midwifery courses for this academic year rose by 92 per cent. on the total number of applications last year.

  Hospices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what support has been provided by his Department to individual hospices in each of the last three years; [100137]

  (2) what role he proposes for hospices in health improvement programmes. [100139]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: The development of health improvement programmes is led by the health authority in partnership with the whole range of local interests, including those who provide local services and those who use local services either as patients or carers, the organisations that represent them, such as community health councils, voluntary sector organisations, support and community groups. This will, where appropriate, include the involvement of hospices and will provide a further opportunity for them to contribute to the development at a local level of strategies for palliative care provision. The need for high quality palliative care should be considered locally as part of the health improvement programme process.

  Approximately a third of hospice running costs are met through the National Health Service.

  Some £20 million will also be made available to palliative care from the National Lottery new opportunities fund for the cancer detection, treatment and care initiative. The initiative will be launched early in the new year.

  Strokes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authorities retain specialist stroke units. [100867]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested, as authorities use different definitions of specialist stroke units.

  However the report on the National Sentinel Audit of stroke 1998 showed that in relation to organised stroke care 50 per cent. of National Health Service trusts nationally had a specialist stroke team, with 64 per cent. having a consultant with responsibility for stroke.
  499W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average cost of caring for a stroke victim in each health authority for the latest available year. [100865]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inquiries his Department has undertaken since 1992 to determine the impact of stroke on the population. [100870]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department conducts annual monitoring of stroke mortality rates collected by the Office for National Statistics.

  Every five years disability is monitored as part of the Health Survey of England.

  Dental Anaesthesia (Fees)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will remove dental anaesthesia from the general dental practitioners' scale of fees. [101191]

  Mr. Hutton
  A review of general anaesthesia and sedation for dental treatment is currently taking place. Decisions about future funding for provision of this service will be made once Ministers have considered the review's findings.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Operation CARE
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what claims for compensation his Department has received from individuals in relation to Operation CARE. [100236]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Victims of sexual and physical abuse as children can claim compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which is administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

  The Authority advise that they cannot isolate cases that are attributable to Operation CARE.

  Pre-inquest Disclosure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the compliance by the Metropolitan Police with his Department's circular on pre-inquest disclosure to families of persons who have died in police custody in(a) the Roger Sylvester case and (b) other cases; and if he will make a statement. [100846]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No general assessment of compliance has yet been made. The circular was issued on 28 April 1999 and it remains our intention to review the implementation of the guidance after it has been in operation for a year.

  My understanding from the information available to me is that the Metropolitan Police are complying with the circular. The Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether criminal proceedings relating to the death of Mr. Sylvester are appropriate. The circular states that
  500W
  disclosure should not take place until either the Crown Prosecution Service has advised against a prosecution of proceedings are complete.

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of convictions in 1998 of motorists charged with driving while under the influence of(a) alcohol and (b) drugs; and if he will make a statement. [101097]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible in the statistics held centrally to distinguish between convictions for driving while under the influence of drugs and convictions for drinking under the influence of alcohol because the charge does not distinguish which of the two is involved.

  Figures of convictions for motoring offences in 1998 have not yet been published, but provisional figures show that some 93,000 convictions for driving after consuming alcohol or taking drugs were recorded in England and Wales, some 7 per cent. lower than the previous year.

  Figures from the Forensic Science Service, however, show that 1,779 blood samples were analysed by them on behalf of the police service in England and Wales during 1998–99, following charges under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, approximately 90 per cent. of which were found to contain one or more drugs (although it is known that some police forces may have submitted blood samples for analysis elsewhere).

  Merseyside Police
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers served in Merseyside Police for each year since 1994 to date; and what is the current number of serving officers. [101038]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is collected twice a year (March and September). The figures for September 1999 are not yet available. The information requested for each year since 1994 is set out in the table.

  Year (as at 31 March)

  Police officer numbers

  1994

  4,693

  1995

  4,659

  1996

  4,411

  1997

  4,230

  1998

  4,216

  1999

  4,211

  Cyclists (Fines)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many on-the-spot fines for cycling on the pavement have been issued by each police force since the scheme was introduced. [100902]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not yet available.

  Each police force has been asked to monitor the new fixed penalty provisions which came into force on 1 August 1999, but the figures are not likely to be available until early in the new year.

  Police Efficiency
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what quantitative assessment he has made of the levels of efficiency of individual police forces, and of the differential impact of his proposed 2 per cent. efficiency savings on their operational capacity; and if he will make a statement. [101114]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office uses a number of different measures to assess police performance. There is no agreed formula for measuring police efficiency, although work on measuring comparative efficiency is being carried out locally to meet the requirements of Best Value. In addition, the Public Service Productivity Panel is assessing tools for measuring efficiency to assist Police Authorities in meeting their Best Value duties.

  The efficiency targets set by the Government require each force to plan efficiency gains to equal to at least 2 per cent. of non-revenue expenditure for reinvestment in front line policing. Each force will retain any cash savings for use in improving their service to the public. The overall impact will be to make efficiency gains worth £440 million available for police operations between 1999 and 2002. The differential impact for each force will depend on the strength of the efficiency plan.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on numbers of(a) total employees, (b) uniformed officers and (c) civilian staff of his planned 2 per cent. efficiency reduction for 2000–01 in respect of the (i) Greater Manchester, (ii) Cheshire, (iii) Merseyside and (iv) Lancashire police; and if he will make a statement. [101116]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This Government's Comprehensive Spending Review has set the police a 2 per cent. year on year efficiency target from April 1999. This is not a reduction in police funding—the resources released by efficiency gains will be reinvested in frontline policing.

  As in 1999–2000, each police authority has been asked to produce an efficiency plan for the year 2000–01 detailing how this 2 per cent. efficiency target can be reached, and how cashable savings will be reinvested to provide a better public service.

  The impact of efficiency plans on numbers of employees, whether police officers or civilians, is a matter for police authorities and chief officers to determine. We expect efficiency plans to be submitted to the Home Office by April 2000, and until they have been finalised I can make no assessment.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take into account the efficiency levels of police forces when assessing bids from them for the additional special funding for front-line officers; and if he will make a statement. [101115]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  One of the "gateway" criteria against which bids will be assessed is that forces are on target to meet the 2 per cent. efficiency gains for 1999–2000 as required by the Government Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Drugs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons aged(a) 10, (b) 11, (c) 12, (d) 13, (e) 14, (f) 15, (g) 16, (h) 17 and (i) 18 years have been (i) cautioned and (ii) convicted for (1) possession of and (2) supply of (y) Class A and (z) Class B illegal drugs in each of the last 10 years. [101369]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Domestic Disputes (Bolton)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many custodial sentences were implemented by courts in Bolton for crimes relating to domestic disputes in each of the last 10 years. [101316]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to identify cases relating to domestic disputes from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database since it does not hold information on the circumstances behind individual offences.

  Handguns
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) illegal and (b) legally-held handguns have been handed in since the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 came into force; [101156]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the ban on privately-held handguns in reducing the level of gun-related crime in the United Kingdom; [101165]

  (3) how much has been paid in compensation to gun-owners for the surrender of handguns to the police since the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 came into force. [101199]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Just over 162,000 handguns were surrendered to the police under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997. Records are not held centrally of those illegally or legally held firearms, including any handguns, which might have been handed in to the police for other reasons.

  The ban on handguns was a direct response to the tragic shootings at Dunblane Primary School in March 1996, which were carried out with legally held handguns. It did not purport to solve the more general problem of armed crime, the vast majority of which is carried out using illegally held firearms. Nevertheless, the ban has removed one potential source of handguns for criminal use: in 1997, 305 handguns were stolen or otherwise misappropriated, mostly from private homes.

  As at 30 November, a total of just over £89 million had been paid in compensation to those individuals who surrendered firearms and ancillary equipment under the terms of the 1997 Acts. The final figure is currently forecast to be approximately £90.2 million.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to(a) detect and (b) confiscate illegally held handguns. [101157]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The decision of smuggled handguns is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Customs, and the recovery of those in criminal use is the individual responsibility of every Constabulary. Intelligence led
  503W
  operations are used by the police to recover firearms from criminals, and Firearms Inquiry Units operated by the police concentrate on the licensing and administration of legitimate firearms to prevent legally held firearms being diverted into the criminal market. Additionally, the National Crime Squad and metropolitan forces run proactive operations against criminal sources that supply illegal handguns. The Association of Chief Police Officers two sub-committees, Criminal Use of Firearms and the Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing are also revising strategies to enhance the detection of illegally held firearms in criminal use.

  In addition to these measures, the Government are pursuing a number of initiatives aimed at supporting police and Customs target and detect illegal activity as and when it occurs. These include:
  The creation of a strategic threat assessment of the firearm situation in England and Wales by the National Criminal Intelligence Service;
  a request by the Home Office for the Firearms Consultative Committee to look into the criminal misuse of firearms; and
  the negotiation by the Home Office, internationally, a draft United Nations Protocol against the illicit manufacture of and trafficking in firearms and, within the European Union, action to review the European Union Firearms Directive with the emphasis on preventing illicit trafficking.

  Once detected, all illegally held handguns are confiscated by police and Customs and, to ensure they never re-enter the market, the weapons are smelted. In 1998, Customs detected less than 200 firearms being smuggled into the United Kingdom, and collectively the police submitted to the Forensic Science Service fewer than 1,000 illegally held firearms recovered used in crime.

  Life Sentences (Murder)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department since 1983(a) how many people have been given life sentences for murder and (b) of these how many remain in detention; and what are the reasons for the difference between the two figures. [101341]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the 16 years from 1983 to 1998, a total of 3,360 persons were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales under sentence for murder. Of these, 2,652 are currently still in custody. The remainder have died or been discharged and these are set out in the table.

  Persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder discharged from prison 1983–98

  Type of discharge

  Number

  Release on licence

  250

  Successful appeal

  146

  Transfer to psychiatric hospital

  144

  Transfer to a non Prison Service establishment

  50

  Pardon/remission

  3

  Died

  80

  Deported/repatriated

  21

  Transfer to another establishment outside England and Wales

  14

  Total discharges

  708

  Kosovo
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will offer United Nations investigators the use of DNA testing equipment and trained staff to identify the killer of a Serb killed on Flag Day in Kosovo Polje; and if he will make a statement. [101163]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are doing all we can to support the peacekeeping process in Kosovo and help the International Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) investigate crimes against humanity and will continue to do so. It is for the United Nations investigators involved in this particular case to decide whether DNA evidence may be of value to their investigation. In that event, we would be happy to consider how we might be able to help.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the savings from the implementation of his proposals to change the law relating to election for trial by jury. [101371]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 125W.

  Drug-related Offences
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions there have been for drug-related offences in the Peterlee and Seaham police sub-division in each year since 1995. [101424]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data are collected on drug offences only, not on offences which may have been committed owing to drug taking. Nor can information be provided at police sub-division level. There is readily available information on proceedings in the Easington Petty Sessional Division for possession of class B drugs. (These drugs are essentially cannabis and amphetamines, and probably account for about 80 per cent. of all drug offences.) In 1995, out of the 25 persons proceeded against in the magistrates court, 22 were sentenced by that court; none were committed for trial to the Crown court. The following year, 1996, 35 out of 39 proceeded against were sentenced by the magistrates court; one person was committed for trial. In 1997, the latest year for which published data are available, 15 out of 18 proceeded against were sentenced in the lower court, while two were committed for trial.

  Consultants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) agreements and (b) contracts with consultants have been agreed since 1 July for future work, giving in each case the name of the consultants and the project concerned. [101456]

  Mr. Straw
  The details are as follows.
  505W

  Agreement

  Project

  Consultant

  Technical Support for Emergency Communications Network Management

  British Telecom

  Fire Service Control and Communications Study

  Mott McDonald

  Support to Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau

  Call Centre Consultancies

  Risk Analysis

  Parity Solutions

  Management Development Support

  David Mathew

  QA Testing Programme of Case Work Information Technology System

  Philip Littleleavon

  Provision of Advisory Services

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary report on the Metropolitan Police Services Strategy

  Michael Briggs

  To Provide advice in the Setting up of the Criminal Records Bureau

  Kermon Contract

  Police aviation work

  Capt. M. Kenworthy

  Call handling study

  Simon Beresford

  Cost Benefit analysis of 'cluster' colleges for Training

  Raytheon Systems Ltd.

  Encryption Products—International Standards

  R. Thorogood

  Therapeutic Community Aspect Design Construct Manage and Finance Projects

  Elaine Genders

  Evaluation Panel support for Doncaster/Buckley

  A. de Frisching

  Comparison of Alternatives for New Prisons

  Mouchel Consulting

  Efficiency Review

  Capita Business Services

  Development of Sex Offender Treatment Programme

  Dr. Anna Salter

  Management of Suicidal Prisoners

  London School of Hygiene

  Evaluation of Video Links between Prisoners and Courts

  Plotnikoff & Woolfson

  Review of Prison Service Training

  Mouchel Consulting

  Production of Purchasing Manual

  Capita Business Services

  Review of Inter-prison Transfer Control

  Erskine Management

  National Minorities Convention
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations responded to the consultation on his Department's(a) draft and (b) final report to the Council of Europe on the Convention for National Minorities; and what issues they raised. [101505]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A very large number of issues were raised and, therefore, I will write to the hon. Member and set out what is a lengthy list.

  Parking Spaces
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of parking places at prisons in England and Wales and of the use made of these by prison officers and civilian staff. [101838]

  Mr. Boateng
  No central record is kept of the number of staff car parking places which exist on the prison estate or of the frequency of use. The Prison Service recognises the need to reduce dependency on the private motor vehicle and endeavours to ensure that car parking at new prisons being planned is kept to the minimum level operationally acceptable.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent of parking places at police premises in England and Wales and of the use made of them by police officers and civilian staff. [101839]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None. The information requested is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  An Audit Commission report published in March this year recommended that all police forces undertake a strategic review of their estate with a view to identifying efficiency savings through rationalisation and better use
  506W
  of resources. Such reviews are likely to include the availability of parking spaces for operational and staff vehicles.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Heywood and Middleton)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people from ethnic minorities have joined the New Deal in Heywood and Middleton constituency since its launch nationally. [100296]

  Ms Jowell
  By the end of September 1999, 34 young people in Heywood and Middleton constituency who identified their ethnic background as from an ethnic minority group had started on the New Deal. The Government are committed to ensuring that New Deal actively promotes equality of opportunity and outcome for young jobseekers of all ethnic and racial groups, and has published their strategy for engaging ethnic minority jobseekers and businesses in the New Deal.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many London local authorities are receiving Section 11 funding. [101044]

  Jacqui Smith
  In November 1998, the Government announced a new grant, the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG), to replace the education element of the Home Office's Section 11 Grant. EMAG was established to raise standards for those ethnic minority and Traveller pupils particularly at risk of underachieving and to meet the particular needs of pupils for whom English is an Additional Language. All London local authorities received funding through EMAG for 1999–2000. Details of individual allocations, which mirrored Section 11 allocations in 1998–99, are set out in the following table.
  507W

  Ethnic minority achievement grant 1999–2000: Allocations to local authorities in London

  £

  Local education authority

  Grant

  Barking

  662,475

  Barnet

  1,459,113

  Bexley

  179,781

  Brent

  2,370,904

  Bromley

  51,161

  Camden

  2,931,900

  City of London

  108,500

  Croydon

  2,032,254

  Ealing

  2,949,203

  Enfield

  2,293,602

  Greenwich

  1,783,616

  Hackney

  4,299,222

  Hammersmith

  940,880

  Haringey

  3,337,039

  Harrow

  863,751

  Havering

  75,640

  Hillingdon

  629,631

  Hounslow

  1,829,207

  Islington

  2,529,175

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,177,506

  Kingston upon Thames

  222,389

  Lambeth

  3,436,055

  Lewisham

  2,211,561

  Merton

  803,895

  Newham

  253,058

  Redbridge

  1,965,442

  Richmond upon Thames

  76,785

  Southwark

  1,431,818

  Sutton

  151,345

  Tower Hamlets

  8,125,390

  Waltham Forest

  2,054,111

  Wandsworth

  1,912,879

  Westminster

  2,151,538

  For 2000–01, £162.5 million will be available to local education authorities to improve the attainment of ethnic minority, Traveller and refugee pupils, an increase of 7 per cent. on the amount available for the same purposes in 1999–2000. Provisional allocations for the newly merged Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant for 2000–01 were announced in October 1999.

  Fresh Start Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what examination and test results of pupils at Fresh Start schools are(a) collected and (b) published; and if he will make a statement. [101178]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: Fresh Start schools are obliged to follow the National Curriculum. The pupils of Fresh Start schools are therefore tested at the end of Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. In addition the pupils will be examined at GCSE/GNVQ and A Level/AGNVQ, where appropriate.

  The results of the Key Stage 2 test will be published in the primary performance tables. The results of the GCSE/GNVQ and A Level/AGNVQ will be published in the secondary and 16–18 performance tables respectively.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications have been 508W
  received for the post of communications strategist in his Department to market the Government's performance-related pay proposals. [101392]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The Department has received 52 applications for the post of Communications Strategist.

  As a modern profession, teachers have a right to expect the best communications to ensure they have timely and targeted information to help them do their job well. This post will co-ordinate and streamline all teacher communications.

  The post is not about marketing performance-related proposals, but about providing a range of information to teachers.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he has made to disseminate to local education authorities and schools best practice in the handling of specific learning difficulties(a) in special facilities and (b) alongside other pupils. [101466]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Action Programme, published in response to the Green Paper "Excellence for all children: Meeting special educational needs", promotes the inclusion of children with special educational needs within mainstream schooling wherever possible, while recognising the continuing need for special schools for some children. Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 requires local education authorities to have regard to the need for securing that special educational provision is made to these pupils. This duty gives the local education authority a role to decide the organisation of provision to suit the needs of the individual child. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs which came into effect on 1 September 1994 provides guidance to help identify and assess children who have specific learning difficulties. The Code is currently being revised to strengthen and improve the guidance and provide examples of best practice.

  Raising educational standards lies at the very heart of our education policy. This must include children with special educational needs (SEN) whether in mainstream or special schools. To support provision for SEN pupils the Department has taken a number of steps. For example it has provided a grant to the British Dyslexia Association to help them develop the "Achieving Dyslexia Friendly Schools" resource pack which seeks to demonstrate that it is possible to meet the needs of children with mild to moderate dyslexia in a mainstream classroom. Two copies of this pack have been sent to all local education authorities in England. Also the Department has funded and made available the findings of three research projects on inclusion:
  "Effective Practice in Inclusion, and in Special and Mainstream Schools Working Together", Manchester University (Published February 1999)
  "Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream Schools", Birmingham University (Published January 1999)
  "Cost and Outcomes for Pupils with Moderate Learning Difficulties in Special and Mainstream Schools", Newcastle University (Published November 1999).

  509W
  In addition we will be producing examples of good effective links from our Working Group on Special and Mainstream schools in the summer term 2000.

  Education Service Providers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will publish the bid documents and business plans which have been submitted by those companies invited to tender for the management of local authority education services; [101504]

  (2) what meetings his Department has had with the London Borough of Islington concerning improving the education service (a) by the borough council and (b) by a privatised service; [101508]

  (3) what criteria he will use to monitor the performance and profits of organisations receiving privatised education services. [101470]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Both the documentation leading up to the inclusion of organisations on our list of function providers for LEA intervention, and the bids submitted in specific cases, are treated as commercial in confidence. Officials have had a large number of meetings with Islington Council, involving elected members, officers, headteachers and school staff, in order to discuss urgent action by Islington officers to improve standards and the planned outsourcing of the service. Officials have also been involved in the evaluation of tenders leading to the recent announcement of a preferred service provider. I have personally met Islington members and officers, spoken to groups of headteachers and visited a number of schools. The proposed contract with the preferred service provider remains under negotiation, but it will include arrangements for regular monitoring against service standards, and link payment to the delivery of targets for pupil performance.

  School Sixth Forms
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many proposals for(a) the introduction and (b) the closure of school sixth forms he has received in (i) May 1997 to April 1998, (ii) May 1998 to April 1999 and (iii) in the period since April 1999 respectively; and how many he has (1) accepted, (2) rejected and (3) deferred. [101465]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the number of proposals decided in each of the periods requested since May 1997. No proposals have been deferred but there is one proposal currently under consideration.

  Number approved

  Number rejected

  Proposals to introduce sixth forms

  May 1997-April 1998

  6

  21

  May 1998-April 1999

  4

  6

  May 1999 to date

  2

  3

  Proposals to remove sixth forms

  May 1997-April 1998

  —

  —

  May 1998-April 1999

  4

  —

  May 1999 to date

  1

  —

CABINET OFFICE

  European Regulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what appraisals have been produced for extrapolating UK data to cover the rest of the EU with regard to regulatory impact assessments. [100234]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government do not keep information in the form requested and could not do so without disproportionate cost.

  It is Government policy that all Departments must complete a proper assessment of the risks, costs and benefits in the UK of a new proposal for legislation at either national or European levels. They must show who is affected, and why a non-regulatory option is not possible.

  We are keen to see the European Commission improve its existing, similar procedure for scrutinising its own regulatory proposals—it is currently undertaking a review. In the absence of general EU guidance, we have advised Departments that they should extrapolate UK data to cover the rest of the EU when analysing European proposals. This advice is contained in our Guide to Better European Regulation, which was published in July.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference. [99963]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Durban, South Africa on 12–15 November. The meeting took significant decisions on the future of the Commonwealth, the promotion of democracy and human rights, Pakistan, debt, trade and development.

  South Caucasus
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy the European Union has for achieving stability in the countries of the South Caucasus. [99964]

  Mr. Vaz
  The EU aims to enhance stability by promoting regional co-operation in the South Caucasus and by developing the region's relationship with the EU. The main instruments of its policy are the Partnership and Co-operation Agreements (PCAs), and the TACIS regional programmes TRACECA and INOGATE. The PCAs offer the European Community and its member states a platform to address political, economic and assistance related issues in the region. The EU met the three states together at the launch of the PCAs on 22 June and again for the first meeting of the Co-operation Councils on 12 October, and intends to continue with joint meetings.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Indian Government and the Pakistani Government regarding the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty; and if he will make a statement. [99967]

  Mr. Hain
  We frequently discuss non-proliferation issues with India and Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary held talks with the Indian National Security Adviser on 27 October. During my recent visit to India, I urged the Indian Government to follow up its public commitment to forge a national consensus on signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Senior officials will hold non-proliferation talks in New Delhi and Islamabad in early December.

  Kosovo
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his US counterparts on the use of depleted uranium weapons in the war in Kosovo. [99968]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussions with his US counterpart on the use of depleted uranium weapons in the war in Kosovo.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [99945]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Six months ago Kosovo was terrorised by repression directed from Belgrade. 850,000 people had been expelled from Kosovo and it was run by the Serb army and paramilitaries. Today, KFOR has replaced the VJ. 810,000 of those refugees have been able to return to their homes, the Serb security forces have been expelled and Kosovo is run by a UN administration.

  Formidable challenges remain in creating a Kosovo that is at peace with itself and with its neighbours. We wholeheartedly condemn the minority of Kosovars who have not seized the opportunity to build a Kosovo free from fear but have perpetuated the cycle of violence. But the position of the great majority of the people of Kosovo is far better now than it was under Milosevic's brutality or than it would have been if NATO had not intervened to end it.

  Russia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with Russia. [99969]

  Mr. Vaz
  Relations with Russia, and her stability and development, remain important for the United Kingdom. The UK has already done much to help Russia with the difficult process of change: there is a strong UK interest in further progress. Our relationship enables us to speak frankly about areas of disagreement, including Chechnya.

  Drugs Trade
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of British policy on combating the international trade in illicit drugs. [99970]
  512W
  Mr. Battle
  FCO co-ordinates the overseas drugs efforts of the relevant Government Departments including HM Customs and Excise and the Home Office. We also work to improve the effectiveness of the various international anti-drugs bodies, including at the UN and EU.

  FCO activity is fully within the Government's 10 year anti-drug strategy under the UK's Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell. Specifically, the FCO co-ordinates supply side overseas activity contributing to meeting the objective of reducing the availability of legal drugs in the UK.

  We spend £6 million per year, on supporting projects worldwide within the framework of the UK drugs strategy to prevent the production and trafficking to the UK of Class A drugs, particularly heroin and cocaine.

  European Commission (Accountability)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues relating to the accountability of the European Commission are on the agenda for the next IGC; and if he will make a statement. [99972]

  Mr. Vaz
  The forthcoming IGC will consider the institutional changes that are needed to prepare for the next enlargement. The Government fully support this. Enlargement is not just about the applicant countries preparing to join the Union, it is also about the current member states preparing to receive them.

  Trade Promotion
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria and performance measures relating to the promotion of United Kingdom trade his Department uses in its annual appraisals of each of the United Kingdom's Ambassadors and High Commissioners. [99973]

  Mr. Hain
  All Ambassadors and High Commissioners now report to the Chief Executive of British Trade International, the unified FCO and DTI operation, on trade promotion and development work. Their performance will be assessed against annual objectives agreed with British Trade International.

  Entry Clearance Visas (Islamabad)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current waiting times for interviews for entry clearance visas for(a) spouses and (b) fiancées in Islamabad. [99975]

  Mr. Vaz
  As at 26 November, the waiting time in Islamabad for interview for spouses was 38 weeks and for fiancées 46 weeks.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he is taking to promote the enlargement of the EU. [99976]
  513W
  Mr. Vaz
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary today to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis).

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the Government's approach to greater EU integration at the next IGC. [99977]

  Mr. Vaz
  The forthcoming IGC will consider the institutional changes that are needed to prepare for the next enlargement. The Government fully support this. Enlargement is not just about the applicant countries preparing to join the Union, it is also about the current member states preparing to receive them.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the volume of legislation produced by the European Union. [99978]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Commission agrees with us that what counts is not the amount of legislation, but whether it is necessary, efficient and proportionate. That is why the Government pushed successfully for the Subsidiarity Protocol at the Amsterdam IGC, to ensure that legislation is only directed at those areas which require it.

  Argentina
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards normalising relations between Argentina and the Falkland Islands. [99979]

  Mr. Battle
  The visit to Britain last autumn by President Menem of Argentina and the Visit of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales to Argentina this March have helped to develop a new spirit of reconciliation and co-operation between our two countries. Later this week I shall accompany His Royal Highness The Duke of York to Buenos Aires for the inauguration of the new Argentine President De La Rua.

  An important milestone in improving relations with Argentina was the Joint Statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Argentine Foreign Minister signed in July.

  Air links between the Falklands and South America have been restored and safeguarded as a result, and now include a monthly flight to southern Argentina. Co-operation has been stepped up to conserve fish stocks in the South-West Atlantic. And the Falkland Islands Government now allow holders of Argentine passports to visit.

  All these measures have the support of the Islanders' elected Councillors. Their role in this dialogue is instrumental. None of these measures affects our solid commitment to defend the Islanders' right to determine their own future. The sovereignty of the Falklands is not for negotiation.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he 514W
  has made of the safety of British oil workers following the upsurge of violence in the oil-producing areas of Nigeria. [99980]

  Mr. Hain
  Our consular staff in Lagos are in close contact with the Community Liaison Officers and contacts within the business and NGO community in the region. There is a warden network in place to pass on advice to the British community.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice has been advising against all holiday and non-essential travel to the Niger Delta region of Nigeria since 12 August 1999. It had been warning of violent incidents in the region for some considerable time longer.

  UN Security Council
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that the EU should have a seat on the UN Security Council [99981]

  Mr. Hain
  Under the UN Charter, an EU seat is not possible as membership of the Security Council is confined to states. The Treaty on European Union already makes provision for how EU member states should act when on the Security Council:"Member states which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other member states fully informed. Member states which are permanent members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, ensure the defence of the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter."

  East Timor
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UN's initiatives in East Timor and Indonesia. [99982]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), which will have overall responsibility for administration and security in the territory, continues to deploy. The handover from the International Force for East Timor (INTERFET) to UNTAET's Peace-Keeping operation will take place as soon as possible taking into account conditions on the ground.

  EU Qualified Majority Voting
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the extension of qualified majority voting at the next inter-governmental conference. [99962]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Cologne European Council in June agreed that the possible extension of qualified majority voting would be on the agenda for the next IGC.

  Our own position on QMV is clear. We are happy to look at extension on a case-by-case basis. Where QMV is in Britain's interests, we will support it. But where key areas of national interest are at stake, such as Treaty change, border controls, defence or taxation, we will insist on retaining unanimity.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress on the implementation of the agreement he signed with Argentina on 14 July regarding the Falkland Islands. [101821]

  Mr. Battle
  A number of the measures set out in the British-Argentine Joint Statement of 14 July have already been implemented. The Falkland Islands Government have admitted Argentine passport-holders to the Falklands since July. All deadlines have been met to restore air links between the Falklands and South America and to introduce measures to combat the common menace of poaching of fish stocks.

  We continue to consolidate progress on the remaining issues. We are working with Argentina on a Memorandum of Understanding on the terms of a study to determine the cost and feasibility of removing the remaining land mines from the Falklands. Both sides continue to work towards a multilateral arrangement to regulate fishing in the high seas of the South-West Atlantic. An Argentine architect has recently visited the Falklands to discuss proposals for construction of a memorial at the Argentine cemetery there. The Argentine Government are committed to review their use of Falklands place names.

  None of these developments affect our commitment to defend the Islanders' right to determine their own future. The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is not for negotiation.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees have been given to the Saudi Government in relation to potential nuclear threats to that country. [101459]

  Mr. Hain
  None.

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official engagements ministers fulfilled in Belize between 1990 and 1999. [101739]

  Mr. Battle
  I can answer only for the period since May 1997.

  Since May 1997, the only FCO Minister to have visited Belize is the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), who visited Belize in February 1998. His programme included official calls on the then Prime Minister, Mr. Manuel Esquivel, the then Foreign Minister, Mr. Dean Barrow, and the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Said Musa. My hon. Friend also called on the Department of Corrections, the Youth Enhancement Academy and Hattieville Prison.

  South America
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what inquiries have been made by the British Embassy in Anuncion into the safety and security of documents relating to Operation Condor being held by authorities in Paraguay. [101620]
  516W
  Mr. Battle
  Documents relating to Operation Condor are among the records held by the Centre of Documentation and Archives for the Defence of Human Rights. They are stored on the premises of the Supreme Court of Paraguay. Our Ambassador has spoken to people concerned with their safekeeping, and is not aware of any current threat to the safety and security of the documents.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is giving to drug eradication projects in(a) Colombia, (b) Ecuador, (c) Bolivia and (d) Peru. [101512]

  Mr. Battle
  The FCO is not providing assistance to drug eradication projects in Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia or Peru. The main focus of FCO counter-drugs assistance in these countries is on interdiction/law enforcement training. We are currently supporting two UN International Drugs Programmes (UNDCP) projects in alternative development for Bolivia and Peru through DFID.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support and assistance his Department is providing to civic and human rights groups in(a) Colombia, (b) Ecuador, (c) Bolivia and (d) Peru. [101511]

  Mr. Battle
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Columbia: Our Embassy in Bogota maintains close contacts with a range of civic and human rights groups in Colombia. Through the FCO's Conflict Prevention Fund and the Embassy's Small Grants Scheme, we have contributed funds to a number of groups, such as The Citizen's Mandate for Peace, Life and Liberty Project Fund, which encourages debate within civil society. We have also contributed funds towards human rights organisations monitoring the human rights situation in the department of Antioquia (amongst the most violent departments in Colombia). We also provide human rights training to the Colombian Police Force.

  (b) Ecuador: We work closely with a number of independent human rights groups including the Human Rights Permanent Assembly (APDH) and the Latin American Human Rights Association (ALDHU). More than £41,000 has been disbursed from the Human Rights Project Fund this financial year to promote rights awareness in Ecuador. This includes funding for a project being administered by APDH to encourage young people to learn about their human, social, economic and cultural rights and how to promote them. In addition, the British Embassy in Quito are supporting a number of other projects aimed at helping street children, indigenous groups and disadvantaged women.

  (c) Bolivia: £42,500 has been provided this financial year from the Human Rights Project Fund to support the office of the Human Rights Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, Mrs. Ana Maria Romero, paid a successful Foreign and Commonwealth Office Sponsored Visit to the UK in November 1999. The main purpose of her visit was to see how the British Government promote human rights. Our Embassy in La Paz have close contacts with a number of human rights groups in Bolivia including Red Andina, CEDOIN, the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights and AMANACER, a charity which helps street children.

  (d) Peru: We maintain close and regular contact with a number of NGOs and independent human rights groups in Peru including the National Co-ordinator for Human Rights, an umbrella organisation which represents more than 50 NGOs working in the human rights field. We also maintain close contact with both the Ombudsman and the Ad Hoc Commission of Human Rights. In November 1999, the Deputy Ombudsman of Peru, Dr. Gino Costa, paid a successful FCO Sponsored Visit to the UK. He attended a human rights seminar in the House

  517W
  of Lords, and was keen to hear about HMG's policies on human rights, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland. We have provided £61,961 this financial year from the Human Rights Project Fund to assist the Ombudsman and Commission with its work and research. In November, the Department for International Development provided more than £20,000 for an electoral assistance project in Peru. More than £93,000 has been disbursed since April 1999 from HRPF to support projects administered by independent human rights groups.

  Southern Sudan
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Southern Sudan. [99958]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to be deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in the Sudan. While our immediate priority is to provide humanitarian assistance, the long-term answer is peace.

  We have long supported the Inter-Governmental Authority on development (IGAD) peace process as the negotiating body most likely to bring about a negotiated and sustainable peace settlement. Recently, as an active member of the IGAD Partners Forum (IPF), we extended our commitment, pledging political and financial support to a permanent secretariat with full-time Special Envoy. This should allow for a sustained and accelerated negotiation to take place.

  After an absence of 11 months, we now have full diplomatic representation in Khartoum. We are therefore in a better position to support the cause of peace in the Sudan.

  Iran
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Iran. [99951]

  Mr. Hain
  There have been a number of significant improvements in Iran's human rights record since President Khatami's election in May 1997. We welcome the Iranian government's commitment to develop an Islamic civil society based on respect for the rule of law. The people of Iran now enjoy significantly greater freedom of expression, despite recent closures of a number of reformist publications, many of which have subsequently reopened under different titles, compared to two years ago. February's local council elections, the first in Iran's history, were also particularly welcome, putting local power in the hands of the people and re-affirming the Iranian people's support for the reform process. There have also been some modest improvements in the situation of women, notably with the appointment of Iran's first four women judges and its first woman Vice-President. Over 50 per cent. of the university intake in Ran is now female.

  However, we and our EU partners have a number of outstanding concerns. We in conjunction with our EU partners co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution on human rights in Iran adopted on 18 November which again underlined continuing international concern about certain Iranian human rights policies. We remain particularly concerned about the discrimination practised against some religious minorities (notably the Baha'is), the continued detention on espionage charges of a number of Iranians, including
  518W
  13 members of the Iranian Jewish community, the violations of the legal rights of prisoners, and the high number of executions. There is continuing discrimination against women in the courts and society generally. We and our EU partners continue to raise these issues with the Iranian authorities in an effort to improve Iran's human rights record.

TREASURY

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tackle tobacco smuggling. [101320]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government will continue to adopt a tough and rigorous approach to detecting, deterring and preventing tobacco smuggling and fraud. In his Pre-Budget Report the Chancellor announced a package of new measures to strengthen Customs' ability to tackle tobacco smuggling and fraud including x-ray scanners and compulsory marking of UK duty paid cigarettes and tobacco, and new offences and penalties for those caught handling or selling unmarked tobacco products.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage other EU member states to increase tobacco taxation in order to reduce incentives for bootlegging. [101319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Commission is due to review tobacco taxation in the coming year and to report the outcome to ECOFIN.

  The Government will continue to take every opportunity, in ECOFIN and elsewhere, to seek to influence the Commission and other member states to introduce a duty structure which would reduce the incentive for both legal cross-border shopping and smuggling.

  Tax Investigations
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what appeal procedures are available to taxpayers who believe they are unfairly targeted by Inland Revenue inspectors or subjected to investigation without reasonable grounds for suspicion. [101365]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any person whose tax return is the subject of an inquiry may appeal to the General Commissioners for a direction that the inquiry should cease. The Commissioners must make such a direction unless there are reasonable grounds for the inquiry to continue. This right is explained in a leaflet which is sent to all taxpayers whose returns are the subject of an inquiry.

  The Inland Revenue may begin an inquiry into a person's tax return without needing to suspect that anything may be wrong. Once an inspector has made sufficient inquiries to satisfy himself that a return is correct, he should end the investigation, and internal guidance and training make this clear. The taxpayer's right of appeal is an additional safeguard.

  The Inland Revenue is committed to treating everyone fairly. However, where a person believes that he is being unfairly targeted, there is a well-established

  519W
  formal complaints procedure. Where the complaint cannot be resolved by the local office or the regional office, it is referred to the Adjudicator, Dame Barbara Mills. Alternatively, a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration ("the Parliamentary Ombudsman") may be made through a Member of Parliament.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what component of Disability Working Allowance compensates for non-entitlement to free school meals; [101145]

  (2) what is the estimated value of the amount included in (a). Working Families Tax Credit and (b) Disabled Persons Tax Credit as compensation for non-entitlement to free school meals. [101143]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 2 December 1999]: Disability Working Allowance was introduced in 1992 and was broadly based on Family Credit. When the Family Credit scheme was introduced in 1988, provision was made to replace the value of entitlement to free school meals by adding £2.55 a week to each child credit. The total child credit has since been uprated annually by the Rossi index.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit and Working Families Tax Credit which replaced Disability Working Allowance and Family Credit respectively were introduced on 5 October 1999.

  Duty Free Allowances
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to provide information to travellers at UK ports of entry on the duty free allowances. [101628]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Posters explaining the allowances are displayed at ports of entry. Leaflets setting out the allowances are published by HM Customs and Excise and are freely available.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements his Department has made for information on the Working Families Tax Credit to be displayed and available to the public at(a) health centres, (b) dentists' surgeries, (c) GPs' surgeries, (d) post offices, (e) public libraries and (f) other venues. [101630]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In advance of the start of the advertising campaign, WFTC literature was made available free of charge to 21,000 intermediary organisations throughout the UK and Northern Ireland. As a result of this:4,700 health centres and GP surgeries now display WFTC factsheets.
  Dentists, pharmacists and GP surgeries will also shortly be supplied with posters promoting the 'passporting' benefits of WFTC.
  Main Post Offices display posters and factsheets and in September, in-house television featured WFTC information every 15 minutes. All other post offices display factsheets.
  Up to 450 public libraries now display WFTC leaflets and posters.
  520W
  Jobcentres featured large window posters, and had leaflets, posters and postcards available inside. WFTC information was printed on vacancy cards and appointment slips.
  Public inquiry areas in Inland Revenue offices and Benefits Agency offices display WFTC leaflets and posters.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in North West Norfolk he estimates will benefit from the Working Families Tax Credit; and by how much he estimates each family will on average benefit. [101321]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit in North West Norfolk are not available. It is estimated that in 2000–01 for the UK as a whole, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, about 1.4 million families will enjoy the more generous help provided by the new scheme. Families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit will receive on average £24 a week more than they would on Family Credit.

  Gold and Currency Reserves
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the United Kingdom's total gold and currency reserves is now held in euros; what is the total holding of euros; what was their cost; and what is their current market value. [101684]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Table 2 of the Quarterly Report on UK Official Holdings of Foreign Currency and Gold for the period July to September 1999, published on 2 December provides a breakdown of the size and composition of the United Kingdom's reserve holdings.

  EU Competition Law
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if UK tax provisions are subject to scrutiny under EU competition law. [101606]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No, provided they do not constitute state aids under Article 87 of the Treaty which has been in existence since 1957.

  Advance Corporation Tax (Charities)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional tax per annum paid by bodies in the charitable sector as a result of the abolition of Advance Corporation Tax credits. [101814]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Charities have paid no additional tax as a result of the withdrawal of payable tax credits on dividends.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to encourage private sector firms to intensify their preparations for possible future British membership of the euro. [101811]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is up to individual businesses to decide how best to make any changeover if the UK decides to join the single currency. The Government's role is to provide the planning framework. That is why we published the outline national changeover plan in February 1999.
  521W
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what degree of labour market flexibility(a) within the UK and (b) between the UK and other EU countries would be sufficient to deal with the problems posed by asymmetric shocks were Britain to join the single currency. [101819]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Member to "UK Membership of the single currency, an assessment of the five economic tests", published by the Treasury in October 1997, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic indicators will be used in determining whether his five economic tests for EMU membership have been satisfied. [101818]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  "UK Membership of the single currency, an assessment of the five economic tests", published by the Treasury in October 1997 used a wide range of economic indicators in determining whether the economic case for joining the single currency was clear and unambiguous.

  Community Sports Clubs (Taxation)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was paid by community sports clubs in the form of(a) inheritance tax, (b) VAT, (c) capital taxes and (d) income tax in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [101722]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no liability for inheritance tax or income tax for the types of organisation that run community sports clubs. Statistics on VAT, capital taxes and corporation tax paid by such clubs are not available.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give community sports clubs comparable status to charities as regards exemption from taxes. [101723]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Some sports organisations already qualify as charities and so enjoy the same tax benefits as other charities. In addition, many non-charitable sports clubs are exempt from direct tax on the income they earn from their members and from VAT on their playing members' subscriptions.

  The Charity Commission plans to consult next year on the extent to which sport is a charitable purpose in its own right.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment and development of credit unions. [101727]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Two reports were published on 16 November which include moves to boost credit unions. The report by the Credit Unions Taskforce, under the chairmanship of Fred Goodwin, investigated ways in which banks and building societies could help credit unions, and the report by the Policy Action Team looked at ways to improve individual access to financial services.

  There will be a new central services organisation for credit unions to help them to deliver a more consistent and flexible service to members. Improved regulation by the Financial Services Authority will ensure that credit union members enjoy similar protection to savers in banks
  522W
  and building societies. A number of deregulatory measures, including increasing the maximum repayment periods for loans, removing the maximum membership limit and allowing credit unions to charge for ancillary services will also be implemented.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the net outflow of revenue from(a) the North West and (b) the North East of England under his revised proposals for a climate change levy. [101703]

  Mr. Timms
  The climate change levy is designed to be revenue neutral for the private sector as a whole, with all the revenues raised being fully recycled back to business through a cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and additional support for energy efficiency measures. The levy package is also expected to be broadly neutral between manufacturing and services.

  It is not possible to say what the exact impact of the levy on specific regions will be. That will depend on a number of factors, including, for example, the future energy consumption of firms in the region, the level of employment in those firms, the number of energy intensive sectors in the region, what use firms in the region make of electricity generated from 'new' renewable sources of energy and in 'good quality' combined heat and power plants, and the extent to which firms in the region take advantage of the proposed introduction of a system of enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments.

  Benefits (Newcastle Upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many claimants of Family Credit,(a) with and (b) without child care disregards, there were in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, what the average estimated value was of each credit payment and child care disregard, in 1997; and how many claimants of Working Family Tax Credit, working families tax credit child care payments, Disabled Persons Tax Credit, and DPTC child care payments there are in Newcastle upon Tyne at present, with the average value of payment in each case. [101845]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As at August 1997 there were 4,300 Family Credit cases within the Newcastle upon Tyne Local Authority district, with an average weekly award of Family Credit of £62.84. The number of cases with allowed child care costs is too small to provide a reliable estimate at this level. Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of the Working Families' Tax Credit and Disabled Persons' Tax Credit in Newcastle upon Tyne are not yet available.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what lower age limit is contained in his proposals on the availability of tax incentives for stakeholder pension plans. [101378]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The joint DSS/Inland Revenue consultation paper "Stakeholder Pensions: The Tax Regime—The Government's Proposals" issued on 16 September did not contain a lower age limit for the
  523W
  availability of stakeholder pensions. We will announce our intentions on all aspects of the stakeholder tax regime when we have considered the responses to the consultation.

  Entertainment Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Bill on the ability of theatres and other arts organisations to raise finances. [101088]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A further consultation document on the regulation of Financial Promotion under the Bill was published in October. It included proposals aimed at removing unnecessary impediments to raising finance.

  The deadline for responses to this consultation exercise is 28 January 2000. The Government would welcome the views of the theatre and other industries.

  IT Contractors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of IR35 on contractors working within the information technology industry. [101089]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Our proposals will ensure that everyone who meets the accepted definition of an employee, whether in the IT industry or elsewhere, will pay tax and National Insurance Contributions on a fair basis.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase public service pensions from April 2000. [102026]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Legislation governing public service pensions requires public service pensions to be increased annually by the same percentage as State earnings related pensions (additional pensions). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced on 9 November 1999,Official Report, column 907W, that benefits such as additional pensions will be increased by 1.1 per cent., in line with the annual increase in the Retail Prices Index up to September 1999. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 1.1 per cent. from 10 April 2000, except those which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase.

  Stock Exchange
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes in the arrangements for dissemination of price-sensitive information by officially-listed companies are planned following the proposed transfer of the UK Listing Authority from the London Stock Exchange to the Financial Services Authority. [102027]
  524W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Listed companies are currently required under the Listing Rules to submit announcements to the Exchange's Company Announcements Office for distribution to the public through the Regulatory News Service. Although the Listing Rules do allow for simultaneous notification of announcements to other news organisations, we consider it would be inappropriate to retain this requirement other than for a transitional period when, subject to Parliament approving the necessary legislation, the FSA becomes the Competent Authority for listing. I have therefore asked the FSA to undertake a review of the arrangements for the dissemination of price sensitive information by listed companies and to come forward with amendments to the current Listing Rules requirements in this area. The FSA will be launching a consultation exercise with interested parties to devise alternative arrangements.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will introduce pack marks on tobacco products to indicate that UK duty has been paid. [102028]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a pack marking scheme for tobacco products in his Pre-Budget Statement. The scheme will become effective from 1 April 2001.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that consumers can determine the country of origin of pigmeat products at the point of sale through correct labelling. [99048]

  Ms Quin
  We are considering all interested parties on guidance aimed at ensuring that country of origin markings on food labels do not mislead consumers about the true origin of the ingredients that have been used. We also intend to promote changes to European and international rules and advice to ensure that consumers are given accurate information about the true origin of the foods they are buying.

  Poultry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many poultry birds were being reared in intensive breeding units in England and Wales on 1 November. [99526]

  Ms Quin
  The total number of poultry birds reared for meat production in England and Wales, as reported in the Agricultural Census published 1 November, is shown as follows. There is currently no provision to distinguish between the production methods used.

  As at 1 June 1999

  England

  Broilers

  77,545,000

  Turkeys

  9,100,000

  All other poultry

  4,944,000

  525W
  Figures for 1999 for Wales are not yet available. A provisional total for broilers is 6,650,000. The figures for 1998 are as follows:

  As at 1 June 1998

  Wales

  Broilers

  7,087,300

  Turkeys

  622,000

  All other poultry

  1,834,600

  Meat Labelling
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that pork imports from countries where standards of animal welfare are lower than in the UK carry information to this effect. [99756]

  Ms Quin
  We are consulting all interested parties on guidance aimed at ensuring that country of origin markings on food labels do not mislead consumers about the true origin of the ingredients that have been used. We also intend to promote changes to European and international labelling rules and advice to ensure that consumers are given accurate information about the true origin of the foods they are buying. This will provide the necessary choice for consumers. In the meantime we will continue to encourage retailers, caterers and public procurement authorities to source their supplies of pork and pork products to British standards.

  Badgers (TB)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to recommence badger culling in those TB study areas where activity has been suspended. [100273]

  Ms Quin
  We announce the general locations of the culling trial areas and have released such information for the five triplets presently enrolled in the trial. But for reasons of staff safety and landowner privacy operational details, including the precise location and timing of operations, are not publicised.

  Farmers Markets
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent advice he has issued to local authorities with regard to the regulation of farmers markets. [100276]

  Ms Quin
  None, but MAFF officials have held discussions with the National Association of British Market Authorities, who represent local authorities with established markets.

  Tallow
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total income received to date from the sale of tallow from rendered carcase material under the over-thirty-month scheme; and what estimate he has made of the income in each year for the expected duration of the scheme. [100826]

  Ms Quin
  It is not possible to predict with any certainty income from the sale of the 200,000 tonnes of Over-Thirty-Month Scheme (OTMS) tallow held in store,526W
  as there are costs associated with its removal from store and transport to the point of destruction. Similar costs do not arise in respect of OTMS renderers burning tallow they produce to fuel their processes, thus replacing oil or gas. To date some 83,000 tonnes of OTMS tallow have been sold to renderers generating an income of around £2.7 million. Contracts exist for the sale to renderers of new production OTMS tallow and this is expected to generate an annual income of over £1 million until the end of the scheme.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on(a) the timescale in section 32 of the Cologne Council Conclusions for integrating environmental issues and sustainable development into fisheries matters and (b) current discussions on the discard system. [100997]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Section 32 of the Cologne European Council Conclusions calls upon the European Commission to report back during 2000 on progress in the integration of environmental issues and sustainable development into fisheries policy. The Government fully supports such integration and will be encouraging the European Commission to meet this commitment.

  (b) Discarding remains a significant concern of the Government. A range of research is placed on the extent of discarding. In addition, we are part funding the collaborative international study by Nautilus Consultants, as referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member on 29 October 1999, Official Report, column 1045W. The new EU technical conservation measures that will become operative from 1 January 2000, are designed to reduce discards. We shall be monitoring their impact.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the countries of the European Union which are allowed to fish in British fishing waters. [101043]

  Mr. Morley
  Vessels from France, the Republic of Ireland, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium have limited rights to fish within UK six to twelve mile territorial waters. The details of the areas and species for which access is granted are set out in Annexe I of EU Council Regulation 3760/92.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to lift the ban on beef on the bone. [101072]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister's oral statement to the House on 30 November 1999, Official Report, column 151. Subject to the outcome of the statutory consultation now underway, and Parliamentary approval of the necessary legislative changes, it is the Government's intention to lift the retail ban on beef-on-the bone with effect from Friday 17 December. A copy of the consultation package is available in the Library of the House.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the sale of Forestry Commission forest land. [101370]
  527W
  Mr. Morley
  We have stopped large scale sales of forest land by the Forestry Commission. Our policy is that the Commission may only sell agricultural land, land associated with houses and other buildings, unplantable land and relatively small and isolated blocks of forest land which do not make a significant contribution to its objectives and which are surplus to its requirements. The Commission may also sell areas for development where this is in the public interest. Areas of forest land which are important for public access will not be sold unless an access agreement is in place.

  French Turkeys
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks are made on the ingredients in the feed given to turkeys in the principal French production units supplying the British market. [101076]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]: Checks on feed ingredients to ensure compliance with extensive EC controls are a matter for the French authorities.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure the combating of woody nightshade in areas susceptible to brown rot of potatoes where the watercourses are within internal drainage board areas. [101294]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: An exercise is under way to eradicate the bacterium which causes potato brown rot (Ralstonia solanacearum) from watercourses in East Anglia where it is known to occur, by eliminating woody nightshade plants which act as a host for the bacterium. This work is being carried out in conjunction with the Environment Agency, the British Potato Council and, in the Middle Level drainage area, the Middle Level Commissioners. Information on the project has been sent to all growers with water abstraction licences in the areas concerned.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that all imported bacon is labelled so as to indicate if it was raised in accord with UK levels of animal welfare. [100101]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: We are consulting all interested parties on guidance aimed at ensuring that country of origin markings on food labels including those on bacon, do not mislead consumers about the true origin of the ingredients used. We also intend to promote changes to European and international labelling rules and advice to ensure that consumers are given accurate information about the true origin of the foods they are buying. In the meantime, we will continue to encourage retailers, caterers and public procurement authorities to source their supplies of pork and pork products to British standards.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will strengthen the prohibition on the routine tail-docking of piglets in the proposed new Regulations on the Welfare of Farmed Animals to ensure that tail-docking is carried out only after consideration of 528W
  other methods which might prevent tail-biting, and only on the advice of a veterinary surgeon; and if he will make a statement. [101635]

  Mr. Morley
  This is one suggestion that has been made in response to the consultation on the new Welfare of Fanned Animals Regulations. It is under consideration along with the many other comments received.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to press the European Commission to submit to the Council the report and proposals on intensive pig farming required by Article 6 of Council Directive 91/630; and if he will make a statement. [101636]

  Mr. Morley
  We lose no opportunity to remind the Commission of their obligation to bring forward various overdue proposals on animal welfare, including that required by Article 6 of Council Directive 91/630.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he has asked the Farm Animal Welfare Council to review the question of leg problems in broilers; and if he will make a statement; [101632]

  (2) if he will commission an independent study to assess the incidence of leg weakness in the UK broiler chicken flock; and if he will make a statement. [101633]

  Mr. Morley
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council continues to monitor leg health in broiler chickens and is evaluating data on leg health provided by the industry. We shall consider the position when further advice from FAWC is received.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of "Agenda 2000: A New Direction for Agriculture". [102025]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I announced today a package of measures which will radically redirect support for agriculture in fulfilment of pledges made in our manifesto and subsequently. My announcement focused on one particular aspect—the Rural Development Regulation.

  Our decision in implementing options under all of the sectors of the Agenda 2000 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy will have an important impact upon the future direction of the agricultural industry.

  Beef Regime

  Under the beef regime, we have decided to use the National Envelope to top up payments to suckler cow producers in the year 2000; the position for future years will be reviewed, in particular to consider the possibility of introducing area-based payments on permanent pasture used for low-density beef production in England.

  We will retain the 90-head limit on beef special premium claims and introduce a UK-wide national ceiling against which the need for scale-back will be assessed; both these decisions will be reviewed in the course of the year 2000.

  We have also decided to implement the cut in Suckler Cow Premium quota by reducing producers' holdings of quota on a flat-rate basis (probably at around 4 per cent.); producers who have reduced production below their

  529W
  quota level as a result of participation in an EU-funded extensification scheme or who can show that the imposition of the cut would materially jeopardise the success of a development plan in progress on 1 January 2000 may apply for exemption from this quote-cut.

  We will increase from the year 2000 onwards the milk quota limit for dairy producers claiming Suckler Cow Premium, from 120,000 kilograms to 180,000 kilograms.

  We will apply a less restrictive two-tier model for extensification payments additional to payments under the Beef Special Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Schemes; and assess eligibility for extensification payments on cattle numbers on producers' holdings on six dates each year, notified to producers retrospectively; this method of assessment will be reviewed as and when our cattle database becomes fully operational, when it includes movement details for older animals.

  Dairy regime

  In relation to the dairy regime, we will be extending the quota leasing deadline from 31 December to 31 March with effect from the next quota year. At the same time, the deadline for processing permanent transfers of quota via a lease of land—though not for other transfers—is
  530W
  being advanced to 1 March in order to ensure that the Intervention Board meets its deadline on the levy calculation. There was no widespread support for the other discretionary provisions set out in the consultation papers and these changes will not be implemented.

  Cross-compliance

  CAP reforms agreed in Berlin also gave powers for member states to attach specific environmental conditions to agricultural support payments, if they consider this to be appropriate. Our consultation exercise sought views on whether to introduce such conditions. Some relevant considerations in deciding whether to do so are: comprehensibility to farmers; ease of enforcement; environmental benefit; and extent of additional costs or regulatory burden for the generality of farmers.

  We are still considering the responses to the England consultation on this issue. However, if following this consideration we identified possible cross-compliance measures, we would hold a further consultation exercise on any specific proposals before introducing them. Meanwhile, we will be retaining our existing cross-compliance measures which the UK has applied for some years, namely the current overgrazing condition in our livestock subsidy regimes and the management conditions for set-aside land.

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

House of Lords: Finance Fall Discussion
Lord Jacobsasked the Leader of the House:
What steps she proposes to take, following the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999, to improve the procedures for debating the Budget and the Finance Bill in this House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am sorry if I disappoint the noble Lord, but the House of Lords Act has no bearing on the position of this House with respect to taxation. Budget resolutions are passed in another place on the day of the Budget and have effect immediately. Debate in this House is not part of that process. As the noble Lord is probably aware, the Finance Bill is debated in this House on Second Reading, although other stages are taken formally. There are no plans to change this arrangement.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her reply. Does she agree that there is great expertise in this House on economic and financial matters which is rather wasted when the Finance Bill is debated on the same day as the Bill is finally passed? Will the noble Baroness examine the possibility of having an informal debate on the Finance Bill soon after it is published in order that the ideas emanating from this House to improve the Bill can be considered adequately in another place?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is great expertise in this House on many of these matters, including previous Chancellors of the Exchequer—I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, in his place. On the other hand, it is the situation—and has been since the 1911 Parliament Act—that the Budget resolutions are not debated in this House. I would always hesitate, even on an informal basis, to give any commitment about other forms of debate without consultation through the usual channels and in the first instance with my noble friend the Chief Whip.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House aware that while I strongly believe that this House can and should take up a much more vigorous place in the constitution now that the House of Lords Act has been passed, I do not believe that it would be right at this stage to consider unbundling the 1911 Act provisions as the Question suggests? I am glad that the noble Baroness agrees that there is considerable expertise in this House on
1144
financial matters. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, we should use it. Would it be in line with the new conditions in this House to change practice in future so that we have two days of debate on the Finance Bill, the first day on the Second Reading and the second for the remaining stages where amendments could be taken and dealt with; and to take steps to avoid that happening on a steamy Friday in July?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if the noble Lord looks back at immediate history and recalls his time as a chief whip, he will recollect that the steamy Fridays in July were usually agreed between the usual channels as being precisely the time when the House wants to deal with immediate legislation rather than detailed provisions of the Finance Bill. As the noble Lord said, any different way of dealing with the Finance Bill would be part of a reorganisation of the 1911 Act. The noble Lord will know that the Finance Bill is customarily certified by Madam Speaker as a money Bill and therefore not susceptible to further proceedings in this House.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare a past interest, having put a few Finance Bills on the statute hook. Most tend to finish up being badly drafted—from all governments. Amendments to Finance Bills in Committee upstairs in another place tend to be put down by both parties in a party political manner. Consequently, serious scrutiny does not take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, has a serious point; so does the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, although he did not take it up when he was in charge. Your Lordships' House has a great deal of expertise which could be used to advantage to put better drafted Finance Bills on the statute book. I understand the problems to which my noble friend refers. However, would it not be sensible at least to consider whether there is another way—by ad hoc methods, or whatever—to deal with the issue? I see that the Deputy Chief Whip is already shaking his head; he must have seen the Treasury brief. There is a serious problem which needs to be carefully considered. It should be possible to put better Finance Bills on the statute book without the party politics. Will my noble friend at least reconsider her Answer?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not think I shall reconsider my Answer which was given in the context of changes that might be made in the light of the House of Lords Act. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Barnett. My line of vision was not sufficiently acute to see him sitting there and to pay tribute to his expertise in my original supplementary reply.
I can only reiterate that there are people with enormous expertise and government experience in this area. I am sure that their contributions on broad economic policy as well as the details of Financial Acts are extremely valuable. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it is difficult in the present context to see a way of developing this within the bounds of the

1145
Finance Act. However, these may be relevant questions when we consider the long-term changes which may come about in this House.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, given the financial expertise which the noble Baroness has been kind enough to acknowledge exists in this House, and consistent with her earlier reply, will she ensure that early in the new year there is a full debate on European taxation so that this House can give full support to the Government in their efforts to prevent the European Commission and other European countries imposing a misbegotten withholding tax on this country with threats that unanimity in fiscal and taxation matters will be removed? I am sure that she could use her considerable influence to procure a debate which would be of great benefit, not least to the Government.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his support in this difficult area of policy. As I said earlier, and as he will know, in this House the timing of debates is always agreed through the usual channels. He will also be aware that his party has regular positions for debates on Wednesday afternoons and, judging by the response from around the House the subject would be popular should he propose it for that slot.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness has read in full the proceedings of the joint pre-legislation Standing Committee on the Financial Services and Markets Bill and will have seen the disproportionate contribution made to the debate by Members of this House, in particular the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Does that not reinforce the point, made from several sides, that as regards at least the technical issues in the Finance Bill there should be an opportunity for this House to make its expertise felt?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only reiterate that I acknowledge that expertise. Although I must confess that I have not read every part of the report to which the noble Lord refers, I know that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and colleagues from this House was extremely important. Perhaps without breaching any confidences I may say that that was one of the reasons why my noble friend the Chief Whip, in consultation with other people in the usual channels, was anxious to see this House properly represented on that committee and would be so again in similar circumstances. As a result of the points made from different parts of the House, I suggest that if Members want a broader context for discussing the issues, it may be relevant to refer them to the Procedure Committee or to those parts of the House's administration which discuss, for example, ad hoc Select Committees. The subject might be most appropriate to that.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept the precedent established in 1995 and 1996 for earlier debates; that is, shortly after the Budget under
1146
discussion? Will she do so particularly in the light of the comment, made in 1996 from the Labour Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that he very much hoped that the precedent would be made permanent?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, frankly, I can only repeat what I said in answer to the other questions. If there is a feeling around the House that the issue should be addressed in the way the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, suggests, there are appropriate ways of doing it.

National Curriculum: Non-religious Teaching
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision is made in the revised national curriculum for the inclusion of the non-religious point of view.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the school curriculum requires schools to offer a broad and balanced curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils. Opportunities exist within the curriculum for teaching about a breadth of religious and non-religious views. The Government have no plans to change the status of religious education or to remove the statutory framework for it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in the context of that Answer, can my noble friend confirm that only a small number of schools include in their curriculum the need to inform pupils that a substantial part of the population does not hold religious beliefs? As the religious education syllabus has broadened a good deal in recent years to include knowledge of all faiths, is it not logical and proper that it should include the non-religious point of view?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend how many schools provide information about the proportion of the population which does not follow any particular religious faith. However, we ought to remember that religious education is about teaching different aspects of different religious faiths to young people, including tolerance for all faiths and for those who hold no particular religious view. Within the school curriculum, there are many opportunities—whether in English, history or the new citizenship lessons which are to be introduced—to discuss such issues.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I recognise the way in which the teaching of religion has broadened to include faiths other than Christianity and I welcome that. However, is it not the case that non-religious people have a strong moral code? Will my noble friend

1147
go further than her previous answers and encourage local education authorities fully to include non-religious teaching in their syllabus and discussions, perhaps by circulating guidance about that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, entirely accept the fact that many people who have no religious faith have strong moral convictions which all of us can and should respect. However, as regards religious instruction in schools, we expect teachers to cover a broad range of issues. It would be difficult to require them to teach about non-religious views in religious instruction. It is important to ensure that a broad range of views are covered and that understanding and tolerance are pert of what teachers are conveying.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's comment that religious education is about religion rather than non-religion. Her colleague in another place, Jacqui Smith, today issued a press release which states:
"Collective Worship also provides an opportunity for promoting pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development".
What does "promoting" mean in that context?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have not seen that document which was apparently issued today. Indeed, this is the first that I have heard about it. I cannot really answer what was meant by the word "promoting" in that context as I have not seen the document.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, will my noble friend please use this opportunity to congratulate those many teachers who, especially at this time of year, organise multi-faith celebrations so that children in their schools may understand, enjoy and appreciate not only their own religions, but also those of other people?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. We should all congratulate teachers who undertake what is often a difficult task in covering a wide range of religious views and beliefs in our multi-faith society. It is one of the strengths of our schools that they do that so effectively.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, should not the Government give considerable encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in that the citizenship curriculum coming into force in autumn 2002 has as one of its basic foundations the whole question of values and is designed to help pupils to develop their own values and their own moral autonomy? Should that not go a long way towards giving solace to the questioner?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes. I greatly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said. The citizenship curriculum will be able to cover a wide range of issues including questions of morality and
1148
democracy. It covers the kind of issues of which we want all young people to be aware, including their obligations to members of their own community and indeed to communities far beyond the one in which they live.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is correct in saying that an awful lot of children do not know anything about religion, is that not a good reason for them being taught it? I presume that if they were not taught it, they would not know much about mathematics either.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend was saying that many young people do not know much about religion, although of course he may speak for himself. I believe that he was saying that many adults in this society do not follow any particular religious faith. The statistics show clearly that that is the case.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the Question is about the non-religious point of view and that it is not answered by widening the range of religions covered? Will she agree that my noble friend is raising specifically the position of those who have no religion and will she address the issue from that point of view?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thought that I had already made it clear that it is possible for those issues to be raised and discussed with pupils in our schools in many different aspects of the curriculum. It is particularly appropriate at the secondary stage and that is indeed what I believe happens.

Afghanistan
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Rawlingsasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest regulations covering the travel of British subjects working with charitable non-governmental organisations in Afghanistan.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government continue to advise strongly all British subjects against travel to Afghanistan because there is a significant threat to their safety. For that reason, DfID will not fund the activities in Afghanistan of NGOs which send British personnel into the country against the Government's advice. The Secretary of State for International Development explained the Government's position more fully in a letter to the Chairman of the International Development Committee on 5th August, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer even though it is not at all satisfactory. We all agree that the Taliban is an evil regime and should on no account be recognised, but will the Minister tell us why, either through NGOs or by other

1149
means, we cannot support the Tajiks, the Shia Hazaras or Ahmed Shah Masoud, who have always held the British in high esteem and have been our friends?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the advice of DIM is quite specific: we shall not fund organisations which send expatriates into Afghanistan against Government advice. However, we continue to fund NGOs which use local personnel. We have just concluded a review of that policy and have changed the policy slightly to enable NGOs to send in expatriates for small periods of time. We shall continue to review the policy on a regular basis.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, under what conditions do the Government expect to recognise the Taliban?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, at this moment in time I am unable to give the noble Viscount a direct answer to that question.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are well-attested violations of human rights, particularly in relation to women, in the Taliban-dominated part of Afghanistan? What action have the Government taken in relation to those violations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are extremely concerned about human rights violations in Afghanistan. We have taken an extremely strong position in relation to our development assistance, which is represented also in the EU position on aid, in which we are clear that aid is agreed only where there is an equitable relationship between women and men in terms of the disbursement of that aid. In addition, we press in all ways possible the Taliban and others involved in Afghanistan about violations of human rights.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has just said, will she assure the House that when aid agencies send personnel into Afghanistan on the temporary assignments that she mentioned, there is no discrimination by the Taliban in terms of insisting that only male members of staff be sent in?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said in reply to previous questions: we take the human rights issues and, in particular, the issue of violations of human rights against women and girls very seriously indeed. It is a matter which we are taking up with NGOs which will be sending personnel for short periods of time into Afghanistan. They understand the Government's position fully.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the restrictions in the case of the United Nations agencies have been relaxed somewhat without
1150
them coming to terms with the Taliban? Cannot the United Kingdom follow that example and give more encouragement to the NGOs?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important for the House to recognise that the International Red Cross and the UN organisations are in a different position to other NGOs. The UN sent personnel into Afghanistan again from March this year. They withdrew their personnel in October last year. My understanding is that the position will be kept under review. As I said, we have amended our policy slightly to enable NGOs working in Afghanistan to be more effective. They indicated to us that it would be helpful to have personnel going in for short periods of time. We have amended our policy in order to enable that to happen. We shall keep that policy under review, but there is a specific and targeted threat against UK and US nationals which we must take extremely seriously.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, surely we should be trying our best to help NGOs to go into Afghanistan to assist people who are being dreadfully abused by the Taliban and who live in the most appalling conditions. Surely that is consistent with an ethical foreign policy. To ignore their needs seems to me to run counter to an ethical foreign policy.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the fact that the Government have agreed over £4 million in development assistance to Afghanistan this year—a figure which will increase to between £6 million and £8 million in the coming year illustrates that they are taking the situation extremely seriously. We appreciate that there is a humanitarian crisis. However, there is also a serious security threat which we must understand and take seriously.

Armed Forces Pension Review
3 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can give a firm date for when the Armed Forces pension review is to be published.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the review of the Armed Forces pension scheme announced in September 1998 is under way. A review of this magnitude, which considers wide-ranging and complex issues affecting a wide range of groups, necessarily takes time. It is expected that the review will report next summer.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her sympathetic, if familiar, reply. I am sure that she is aware that I am speaking about the Act relating to attributable Armed Forces family pensions, with particular reference to the retention of pensions on the remarriage of post-1973 war widows. However, is she aware that yesterday was the Feast of St. Nicholas,

1151
who is renowned for filling the stockings of young ladies unable to get married because they do not have a dowry? Would it not be seasonably jolly if the MoD were also to play Santa Claus?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very glad that my response is a familiar one; I hope that that at least has the merit of consistency. We shall carry forward this review as quickly as possible. It is a complex issue and needs a considerable amount of work. In a seasonable spirit, I say to the noble Baroness that I believe that there are two reviews which are of interest to those concerned. The noble Baroness is, of course, particularly concerned about war widows. The first is the Joint Compensation Review, which looks at paying compensation to members of the Armed Forces for death, injury or illness which arises as a result of their military service. That compensation review is due to report early next year and we hope to have proposals for public consultation early in the year 2000.
The second review relates to the Armed Forces pension scheme. That is a comprehensive review which will take into account the question which I know is of particular concern to the noble Baroness; that is, that relating to life-long pensions for widows—pensions which are not withdrawn on remarriage. Therefore, there are two reviews which I hope will be of interest to her.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the present pay and issue of service personnel are abated by a percentage to pay for their Armed Forces pension? I believe that that abatement is around 7 per cent. Can she assure the House that a basic assumption has been made in the review that that percentage will not be increased?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the review next year but, of course, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right. There is an abatement of salary of members of the Armed Forces to pay for their pension. In that respect, it is similar to the Civil Service pension scheme and, indeed, to a number of other public service pensions. The abatement reflects the view of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body about what is a sensible level of abatement for Armed Forces pensions. While it is of interest to those undertaking the review, I am sure that that matter will remain also of very great interest to the body itself.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the review intended to clear up the anomaly which has arisen over attributable benefits for about 600 TA and reservists who fought in the Gulf War?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the review of the Armed Forces pension scheme—not the review about compensation but the second review about which I spoke a moment or two ago—will deal with the question raised by the noble Countess. If there is any reason for me to revise that
1152
answer, I shall make sure that I write to her as quickly as possible. However, it is my understanding that that is indeed the case.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether the reply which she gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, about timing with regard to the pension review will apply also to the plans for the revision of the methods of pay for the Armed Forces as a whole. If that is not completed at that time, will there be any disadvantage to the Armed Forces in that they will not receive appropriate pay increases?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in answer to a recent Written Question, I informed Members of your Lordships' House that the adjustments to be made to the pay of the Armed Forces will now take place in the year 2001. I shall write with further details because the explanation is rather lengthy. The noble Lord could look it up in Hansard, but I shall be very happy to write to him giving proper details of what that involves. However, it is deferred until 2001.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether the review will deal sympathetically with the differential between Gurkha pensioners and those pensioners who belong to Great Britain? Will she tell us something about progress in that sphere?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord will find that the differential to which he refers has in fact been rectified. An announcement was made about three or four weeks ago, but I shall write to the noble Lord with the details.

Business of the House: Private Notice Questions
3.7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House if she will assist the House on a matter that has arisen which is, I believe, of procedural importance.
This morning I sought to ask a PNQ on what the Government have been saying to the Government of Russia about the war in Chechnya, where an ultimatum has now been issued to the citizens of Grozny. The Leader of the House declined that PNQ request. She is entitled to do so and I advise the House to accept that.
However, I have asked a PNQ for a second reason in addition to the intrinsic importance of the matter. In the other place there is a procedure known as a Deferred Question. That is a rare procedure. This afternoon the Foreign Secretary has chosen personally to use that procedure to answer an Opposition Question on Chechnya couched in precisely the same terms as my PNQ. The convention is clear: that, when

1153
a Statement or PNQ is offered in another place by the Government, it is also offered here. If the usual channels request it, it is repeated.
Therefore, my question to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is this. I believe that, ideally, matters should be dealt with by a Statement. But if they are not and if the Deferred Question procedure is to be used again, how will she protect the right of the House to be offered information given to the other place by the Government? If a matter is important enough for the Foreign Secretary or another senior Minister to use that procedure to inform another place, surely it is intrinsically important enough also to be heard in this House. Does the noble Baroness agree that this is a procedural issue warranting careful consideration? In the light of what I have said, will she consider the case for a Statement to be made at the very earliest opportunity tomorrow on the unfolding situation in Chechnya?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the situation in Chechnya is serious. If he considers what he has said and looks at what has happened in another place today, I believe that he will be aware that the request to have a Private Notice Question or Statement was refused by Madam Speaker in the other place. Therefore, the procedures which he quite rightly says are normally followed here do not need to be followed. He rightly points out that we do not have the rather different procedure of a Deferred Question.
He will be aware that Foreign Office Questions have taken place in another place this afternoon. Therefore, the Foreign Secretary was there in order to answer a Question which, as I understand it, was rather similar to the one which was afterwards tabled as a PNQ and, indeed, as I said, turned down by Madam Speaker. Again as I understand it from the other end of the Corridor, the reason is that the Foreign Secretary suggested that that might be dealt with under the rather arcane procedure, if I can call it that, of the Deferred Question simply because he did not want the whole of Foreign Office Questions to be devoted to the Chechnya question, as they feared might happen if he took the Question as originally scheduled in the line-up of Foreign Office Questions this afternoon.
Therefore, I believe that the situation is slightly more complicated than the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition suggested. I suggest to him that the procedure for Private Notice Questions in this House has worked well in the past, continues to work now, and I see no particular reason for revisiting it. At least the noble Lord has not suggested, as I rather feared he might, that we should attempt to change our procedures on this matter in the light of the passage of the House of Lords Act.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us have considerable sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde? I believe that the matter is worthy of consideration at
1154
the next meeting of the Procedure Committee. Is she aware that many of us recognise the difficulty facing any Leader of the House when Private Notice Questions are tabled? I certainly do not believe in challenging such decisions.
However, is she also aware that many noble Lords are not as satisfied as she appears to be about the way in which the matter has been handled in the past? Many of us can recall arguments in the last Parliament when Private Notice Questions were turned down, in the view of many of us, entirely unreasonably. Finally, is she aware that many of us take the view that, if the Leader of the Opposition tables a Private Notice Question on a matter of considerable public importance, it should be allowed?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure that I necessarily agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris; nor am I sure of what precisely he does not accept. If he does not accept that this House has a different way of dealing with Private Notice Questions to another place, that is an issue which should be dealt with under the organisation of the procedure of this House. If he is concerned about the particular circumstances of today, I hope that in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I drew attention to the different position in which the other place is dealing with Foreign Office questions. It is simply a question of where a particular issue—I agree of seriousness—is taken in that context.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness. My understanding is that the Government have deliberately used a procedure which exists in another place to avoid the necessity of either making a Statement to the House or, indeed, answering a PNQ. The authority I have for that is taken from page 291 of Erskine May, which states:
"Although there is no explicit provision for such procedures in Standing Orders, these practices have by convention been allowed as being subsumed within the provisions for making ministerial statements".
That is my point. Clearly, an answer which is being subsumed into a ministerial Statement is being given to the House of Commons and being denied here.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said to the noble Lord when he made the point earlier. The Private Notice Question in another place was refused by Madam Speaker. It is the case that it is Foreign Office Questions this afternoon. The decision was taken to use this procedure. As I understand it, though his information may be slightly different to mine, as may his sources of information, that was done to make it possible to discuss Chechnya without it dominating the whole of Foreign Office Questions.
If we are being pernickety, I would point out to the noble Lord—I would not do so except that he has returned to a point which I thought was satisfactorily answered—that I understand that he tabled his PNQ one minute before the deadline this morning. Indeed,

1155
he did not inform me, except in an indirect message, that he intended to raise this matter on the Floor of the House.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. Can she confirm that it is the intention of the Government to make a Statement on the situation in Chechnya in this House tomorrow?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords, I cannot. As the noble Lord will he aware, matters concerning the operation of Business in this House are always decided through the usual channels. It would be inappropriate for me to pre-empt, from the Dispatch Box, any decisions about the Business of the House in that way.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde tabled a Question one minute before the deadline. It is, therefore, within the deadline. How many minutes, hours or days before the deadline does the Minister think is acceptable to take Private Notice Questions?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl makes an insubstantial point. I simply pointed out that if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt this to be an extremely serious matter, as he obviously did, his Question could have been tabled earlier. That would have enabled more time for discussion. Indeed, as I have said, he could have discussed it with me personally. That was my only point.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House keep an open mind on the possibility of a Statement tomorrow, particularly when she has read what has been said not only by the Foreign Secretary but about possible revelations concerning Foreign Office contacts with what one might nowadays call "dissidents" in that country?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an entirely relevant and important point about the substantive nature of the issue we are discussing: that is, the serious issue of what is happening in Chechnya. Of course I keep an open mind. My response to the earlier question was simply to abide by the normal understandings that these matters are not decided by one Minister or the Leader of the House at the Dispatch Box, but through the usual channels.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. Two years ago this Government published the Report of the Review of Safeguards for Children Living Away From Home. That review was conducted by
1156
Sir William Utting and revealed a picture of failure. Many children who had been taken into care to offer them protection and help had been neither protected nor helped. Some had actually suffered harm at the hands of those supposed to help them. Others had just been badly let down. They had been moved from placement to placement, from school to school, and then turned out to fend for themselves when they reached 16. This was a failure of the whole system.
I remind noble Lords of some of the statistics lying behind this drive to improve standards for children and young people in and leaving care. As many as 75 per cent of children leave care with no educational qualifications. As many as 50 per cent are unemployed. Twenty per cent experience homelessness within two years of leaving care. An increasing proportion of young people leave care at 16 to fend for themselves. In 1993, 33 per cent of those leaving care between 16 and 18 were aged 16. In 1998 that figure had risen to 46 per cent. Compare that with the average age at which young people leave home in this country, which is 22. Is it any wonder they struggle to cope?
There are complex underlying reasons, but one of the most powerful boils down to money. At 16, young people can claim state benefits so there is an incentive for local authorities to discharge them from care and on to someone else's budget. We need to tackle this sort of perverse incentive. This Bill does so.
In July this year we published a consultation document, Me, Survive Out There?, setting out all these issues and our proposals for dealing with them. We had a very encouraging response. More than 160 organisations, authorities and individuals replied. Eighty-three per cent of the responses supported our proposals. We are grateful to all those who replied. This Bill is the result. It follows closely the outline of the consultation document.
We believe that local authorities' responsibilities towards young people in and leaving care should correspond more closely to those of responsible parents. That means providing support and assistance for children beyond the age of 16. Young people in and leaving care should be able to expect this from their corporate parent. That is why Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill place new responsibilities on local authorities to assess and meet the care and support needs of children aged 16 and 17 who are in their care or who have left care.
For those who have left care, the local authority that last looked after a child will be responsible for continuing support wherever the young person is living. Responsible local authorities will have a duty to keep in touch with these young people wherever they move to; a duty that will apply beyond 18 up to the age of 21. No longer will local authorities be able to forget their responsibilities to the young people who leave their care.
It is important that young people are helped to prepare and plan for their future to enable them to achieve their aspirations. That is why, from their sixteenth birthday or as soon as they become eligible under the new arrangements, young people in and

1157
leaving care will have a pathway plan. The plan will map out a clear pathway to independence and will cover education, training, career plans and the support to be provided by the local authority. Young people will be directly involved in drawing up the plans, as will other interested parties, and the plan will be reviewed regularly to develop with the changing circumstances and ambitions of the young person.
The first three clauses of the Bill introduce the duty to provide young people in and leaving care with pathway plans. The duty will apply to all eligible and relevant children aged 16 and 17 who are in care or who have left care and will continue up to the age of 21 (and beyond where the young person is in higher education). The same clauses also introduce a parallel duty to provide these young people with young person's advisers. Currently many young people are unaware of the services that are available to them or how to access them and it is essential that under the new arrangements young people receive the support and assistance they need in a co-ordinated and accessible way.
The young person's adviser will provide a single point of contact for the young person, easily contactable in times of crisis or whenever advice is needed and able to put the young person in contact with other specialists such as careers advisers. The adviser will also be responsible for overseeing the pathway plan and ensuring that the young person receives the advice and support to which he is entitled. For young people who have left care, the adviser will be expected to fulfil the local authority's new duty to keep in touch.
Education and training is one of the best ways to improve a young person's life chances, and we believe that local authorities should encourage and help care leavers continue in education. That is why Clause 4 of this Bill gives local authorities new responsibilities and powers to make support available for care leavers in higher education. Currently, local authorities can assist care leavers with the costs associated with education or training up to the age of 24 only if they start the course before the age of 21. Clause 4 will get rid of this restriction. Young people in this particular group are often ready for higher education later than their peers, so this provision allows local authorities to provide assistance whenever the young person starts the course.
One of the disadvantages faced by care leavers in higher education is having no family to return to for vacations. That is why Clause 4 of the Bill also places a new duty on local authorities to assist a care leaver in higher education with vacation accommodation where this is needed.
All these new arrangements for young people in and leaving care will be underpinned by a new financial regime, the foundations of which will be laid by Clause 6 of the Bill. Currently, too many children leave care before they are ready to do so. The proportion of 16 and 17-year olds leaving care at the age of 16 increased from one third in 1993 to a little under one half in 1998. This trend is alarming and we
1158
are determined to reverse it. We believe that one reason for this trend is the perverse financial incentive for local authorities to push children as young as 16 out of care and onto benefits. The new financial arrangements will remove this incentive and recognise that young people in and leaving care need proper support and guidance, not just cash.
The funds from income support, housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance to which these young people are currently eligible will, therefore, be transferred to a new budget, to be allocated to local authorities to support these young people properly. This budget will be based on local authorities' existing spend on this group, drawing in additional resources from the children's social services special grant, making extra money available to ensure that local authorities are able to fulfil their new duties to this vulnerable group. We want to see local authorities act more like responsible parents towards the children in and leaving their care.
We recognise that at present certain 16 and 17 year olds—such as disabled children and lone parents—are eligible for income support even if they live at home with their parents, recognising that they have special needs. The new financial arrangements will continue to recognise that these groups have special needs. Clause 6 contains provisions allowing the Secretary of State to exempt certain groups from the new financial arrangements and we intend to use this power to ensure that disabled children and lone parents keep their present entitlements to income support.
Taken together these measures add up to a substantial package of support, both personal and financial. We believe that it will make a significant difference to the life chances of these young people, helping them to grow into independence and a rewarding adulthood. But it would be naive to assume that it will always be sweetness and light. Inevitably there will be disagreements and failures.
We anticipate that the involving and empowering aspect of pathway planning will minimise disputes but nonetheless we have to have a robust, swift and sensitive means of dealing with complaints. The Bill provides for regulations to describe the complaints procedure for these young people. We anticipate using the existing machinery but building in additional sensitivity, such as an advocate for the young person. We shall also be monitoring closely how quickly complaints are resolved. Young people do not have the leisure to put their lives on hold while bureaucracies grind slowly through processes. Again, we hope that most complaints will be settled amicably and quickly, but, again, it would be naive to assume that this will always be the case.
There have always been troubled young people who run away from local authorities and it is wise to assume that there always will be. For these young people, we need to make sure that there is emergency provision to pick them up and a support system which is flexible enough to encourage them back on terms which they can accept. For emergencies, these young people will still be eligible for emergency help from any local

1159
authority in whose area they fetch up. As now, they may turn up at refuges such as Centrepoint, or at night shelters. Emergency provision will see them through the short time it takes to re-establish contact with their responsible authority.
Our new arrangements are designed to be as responsive as possible to young people disaffected with their local authority, for whatever reason. They can live wherever they choose in the country, and their authority will still be responsible for maintaining them. So there will be no more disputes between authorities about whose budget the young person belongs with. The main point of contact will be the young person's adviser. If the young person wishes, that contact can be minimal and it can be the only contact he or she need have with any local authority. And should that relationship be the root of the problem—even though the young person will have had a major hand in choosing the adviser in the first place—there will be scope for making changes. These measures are intended to ensure that no young person needs emergency support for long; and that where there are problems a solution can be reached as quickly as possible.
This Bill is mainly about provision for young people aged 16 and 17 in and leaving care. We know that there is a strong lobby to extend support as well to those aged 18 and over. In our response to the Utting report we said that the Government are minded to extend this duty until the young person reaches the age of 21. However we will first study the costs, limitations and affordability of doing so.
The Bill makes young persons' advisers and pathway plans available to care leavers up to the age of 21, or 24, as I said, if they are being supported in education or training. Authorities can provide support for education and must provide vacation accommodation for higher education if it is needed. The Bill places a duty on local authorities to keep in touch with these young people. Local authorities already have a power to assist, in kind or in cash, and We have made provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations about special groups in respect of whom that power would be converted to a duty. We are determined to maintain support for young people leaving care and to help them—not to push them—into fully independent adult lives.
In conclusion, we believe that young people in and leaving care have not been getting a fair deal; their life chances have been unacceptably restricted and too many end up socially excluded, without qualifications, without jobs and without homes. Too many are forced to leave care before they are ready. As the corporate parent of this vulnerable group, this Government recognise their special responsibilities and duties. All local authorities must act as responsible parents would towards their own children, supporting them in the transition from childhood to adulthood. They must ensure that, on leaving care, these young people are not isolated but participate socially and economically as citizens.
1160
The Children (Leaving Care) Bill will provide the statutory framework through which the Government can change the local authority care and support system to give these young people the support that they need and deserve.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
3.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for his very clear and helpful introduction to this Bill. It is a Bill that we greatly welcome. Ten years ago the passing of the Children Act represented a landmark in the level of legal protection afforded to young people. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill extends and brings up to date the provisions of that Act, as they apply to perhaps the most vulnerable group of children in our society; namely, children in care.
If we wanted a reason to justify the importance of this measure, we need look no further than the sobering statistics associated with care leavers; indeed, the Minister has already given us some of them. Of the 5,000 children who leave the care system each year, whether that care has been provided by foster parents, by a residential home or by others, more than three-quarters have absolutely no academic qualifications. Between 50 per cent and 80 per cent are unemployed. Some 30 per cent of single homeless young people have previously been in care, as have no fewer than 23 per cent of adult prisoners and 38 per cent of young prisoners. If these figures do not resonate with sufficient clarity, we should perhaps reflect on the statistical base line. Care leavers account for less than 1 per cent of their age group, yet they comprise a vastly greater proportion of those who are in some way disadvantaged. It should not surprise us that care leavers have been shown in recent studies to be an especially unhappy, vulnerable and dissatisfied group of young people who feel rejected by the system.
Yet the system ought to be looking after them. The statutory duties of local authorities to prepare children for leaving care and to support them afterwards were laid down in the Children Act 1989 and in associated regulations. These duties, combined with a number of discretionary powers, enable local authorities to provide for the well-being of young people who leave the care system. However, experience has shown a woeful degree of variation in the level and type of pre-care and post-care support given by local authorities around the country. Some authorities are models of excellence. But, all too often, budgetary constraints lead to the opposite result; for example, the amounts paid under leaving-care grants vary from £2,000 down to just a very few pounds. Similar differences are evident in the financial assistance provided for further education and training for employment.
What we are talking about here, of course, is that most important ingredient in the life and expectations of any young person; namely, opportunity. For those who begin their adult lives without the love and

1161
support of a family—or, indeed, without the love and support of anyone at all—the absence of a helping hand at that stage can very often mean the denial of such opportunity. Worse still: it can also lead directly to that damaging downward path that leads to homelessness, unemployment and crime.
The system, too, contains some perverse incentives. A local authority may be tempted to look for ways of discharging a young person from care early, because in doing so it will enable the burden of maintaining that individual to be shifted away from itself and onto the benefits budget. Increasingly the figures show that the average age at which young people are being discharged from care is coming down—in many cases to as low as 15. The Minister rightly alluded to that fact. This is an extremely worrying trend.
If we think of what happens in ordinary families where, quite typically, parents continue to provide support for a child until he or she reaches the age of 22, we can see better what kind of a deep end we are pushing these young people towards. That push, it must be said, often comes from the children themselves, who find the care system oppressive and cannot get out of it soon enough. But the world that they move into, frequently with high hopes, can be a world of disappointment, characterised by dependence on benefits, seedy accommodation and a lack of any kind of emotional support.
It is these difficult issues that this new measure sets out to address. I shall not go over the Bill's detailed provisions that have already been covered so well by the Minister. Let me say though, at the outset, that we believe them to represent in broad terms a very decided step forwards. In particular, we welcome the emphasis in the Bill on treating care and after-care as a continuum rather than as two discrete stages in a child's life. We welcome the attempt to remove any perverse incentive that a local authority may have to discharge children from care at too young an age. We very much support what I venture to say is the Bill's underlying theme, which is that each and every child leaving care is an individual whose wants and needs are different from those of the next child and who deserves the kind of support that he would receive had he been brought up in an ordinary family.
However, two things will make or break these proposals. The first of these is resources, sufficient to enable them to be delivered properly. The second requirement is that the whole process of needs assessments, pathway plans, personal advisers and ongoing support must be one that the children themselves can trust and take ownership of. One of the themes emerging from published research is that children do not feel sufficiently in control of what happens to them as they leave care. They want to feel as independent of social services as it is possible to be. The close involvement of the child in the preparation and review of pathway plans, and conveying the feeling that his or her wishes are taken account of, is absolutely essential if each plan is to work as it should.
1162
I hope that the Government will take these concerns on board by the time the Bill comes into force. As regards resources, I understand why Ministers have been minded to consider ring-fencing the budget for care leavers. But I confess that I have considerable doubts about the wisdom of it. The problem with ring-fencing is that the more it occurs, the more pressure builds up on other local authority core services. It leaves absolutely no room at all for flexibility. Important as care leavers are, the ring-fencing of funds sends a message to local authorities that somehow they are not to be trusted and that all they are really good for is to act as agencies for delivering the Government's policies. I wonder whether the Government should look again at this aspect and find another way round the problem, perhaps by setting minimum standards.
As an aside to this, I have seen the concern expressed that the money from the "Quality Protects" initiative has already been allocated and will not, at least for the most part, be available for the purposes that the Government now intend for it under this Bill. What is the Minister's comment on that? Can he say how much money overall the Treasury is budgeting to fulfil the provisions of the Bill, and how much of this is new money?
Under the heading of "resources", I feel that I must express a concern over the ability of local authorities to deliver the sort of service that will be expected of them when, in manpower terms, many of them are already stretched to the limit. What role do the Government see for voluntary agencies in this field? Do not the Government envisage practical difficulties emerging for local authorities who find themselves having to discharge their duties at a considerable geographical distance from a young person? Will these difficulties be reflected in the funding formula?
Looking at the Bill as a whole, I think it is unfortunate to say the least that devolution has created some anomalous differences for care leavers north and south of the Border. Scottish care leavers who move to England will not be "eligible" or "relevant" children under this Bill and will, therefore, be treated differently from English and Welsh children. In my view, this can only complicate the lives of such children and place them even further apart from the benefits system than they are at present.
We are told in the Explanatory Notes that English children who move to live in Scotland will continue to be able to claim social security benefits. If a child is in such a situation, will the Minister confirm that it will make no difference whatever to the requirement for his or her local authority in England to continue discharging the various duties that the Bill places on it?
I turn briefly to other, more detailed topics. I think that we shall want to explore in Committee whether the definition of eligible children is as wide or as flexible as it ought to be. For example, there are some particularly vulnerable children who may not have been in care for long, but who nevertheless are deserving of ongoing support. I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Government intend that

1163
young people on remand and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children should be eligible for support, as was suggested in the original consultation document.
I should be grateful, too, if the Minister could say what special provisions will be put in place for disabled care leavers. Local authority statistics of 1998 indicated that up to a quarter of the looked-after population is disabled. Will the guidance that is issued reflect the specific needs and experiences of those young people?
We shall wish to look at the powers that the Bill gives to local authorities as distinct from duties. We shall wish to ensure that the balance between the two is the right one. Under that broad heading can the Minister say whether the Government intend to stipulate in regulations a minimum baseline rate of financial support for care leavers? It seems to me that unless that is done—whether or not the budget is ring-fenced—young people will find themselves subject to a similar sort of lottery from different local authorities, as exists at the moment.
I understand why the Government have chosen to remove care leavers from the scope of the social security system, but concerns arise from this. A blanket exclusion from benefits could leave the most vulnerable children without any source of financial support—for example, children who become estranged from their personal adviser and from the care system. Will the Government consider whether a discretionary right to claim severe hardship allowance could continue for the small minority who find themselves in need of a financial safety net? In that context we should remember that short of a 100 per cent robust and watertight system—which no system can be—there will always be some care leavers who are in danger of falling through the cracks.
The Government's consultation document proposed that an independent mediation and appeals mechanism should be established to cater for those children and young people who are in dispute with their social workers over their pathway plan. An independent review panel would allow care leavers access to independent representation at appeal, and also serve, by virtue of its very existence, as a guarantor of local authority obligations. Can the Minister say why these important proposals have not been incorporated in the Bill?
These are only some of the issues that we shall wish to explore in Committee. For now, let me say this. This is a Bill which addresses the needs of a special group of young people—special in that their ability to reach their full potential and then go on to lead fulfilling lives is dependent on their not being short-changed by society. The former Secretary of State, Mr Dobson, observed in the consultation document that the duty we owe to them is exactly the same duty as we owe to our own children, and that the support we provide should, as far as possible, be the same support as young people receive who have been looked after by their families. Let me add a wholehearted "Amen" to that. We look forward to playing our part in putting a
1164
Bill on the statute book that will bring a better and fairer system of support to those who have a right to expect exactly that.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in thanking the Minister for his clear exposition of the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is the result of a long campaign by the voluntary sector to improve life and life chances for care leavers.
I want in particular to pay a tribute to Tory Laughland, the founder of the Who Cares Trust, the caring organisation for young people in, and leaving, care. I first met her in the early 1990s when she was campaigning for young people in care and leaving care. I was sponsoring homeless projects through Kingfisher plc's community involvement programme. It was clear that a totally disproportionate number of young people leaving care became homeless and ended up sleeping rough, as indeed they still do. She inspired the company to work with caring organisations to try to develop independence training for young people leaving care, and linked to job opportunities.
However, it was an uphill battle getting politicians to wake up to the way in which society was failing these vulnerable young people who were effectively thrown out of care at the age of 16. I am just sad that Tory Laughland is not alive today to see her campaign come to fruition. The reason Tory was so effective in her campaign for and with young care leavers was because she applied the kind of tests to corporate parenthood that we do not think twice about in relation to our own children. Above all, she believed in listening to young people in and leaving care and asking them what they wanted.
What caring parents would want their own children to have to fend for themselves totally once they reach the age of 16? Yet it is a horrifying fact that even now half of all care leavers do so at 16, despite their lack of maturity and life skills to enable them to cope adequately. However, as has been pointed out by Utting's children's safeguards review, the government response and the subsequent consultation paper, the current care system gives a perverse financial incentive to local authorities and young people to terminate care early, as the Minister pointed out. That is why so many of us welcomed the tone of the consultation paper which stated:
"Some people leaving care have been let down badly. They have been expected to cope with independence too early and with too little support".
In the letter to councillors in September 1998, the former Secretary of State, Mr Dobson, stated that local authorities should,
"provide the kind of loyal support that any good parent would give their children".
I strongly support that statement. That is the yardstick by which the reforms set out in this Bill should be measured.
In that light, we on these Benches of course support a great deal of what is proposed in the Bill. We welcome the new duties imposed on local authorities

1165
to support care leavers from the ages of 16 to 18. In particular, we support the new duties as regards personal and financial support. We are concerned, however, that cash support should still be given so that money management skills can be learned. We also have worries about the total withdrawal of benefit for those young people who become estranged from their personal adviser. Should not severe hardship allowance be available in those circumstances?
In addition, although the Government appear unwilling to accept the point, we believe that consistency between local authorities as regards levels of financial support is vital, particularly with regard to the care-leaving grant, and that regulations should provide for that. At the end of the day, however, if these new duties are to operate properly, adequate government levels of funding need to be provided for local authorities. Can the Minister give an assurance that that will be the case?
We also welcome the duty to develop pathway plans for each eligible young person about to leave care. However, when will these start to be prepared? It should be well before potential care leavers reach the age of 16. The young person must also be closely involved, and consulted, in the process.
We also welcome the introduction of young persons' advisers. I hope in particular that the role of the voluntary sector—I agree with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in this respect—in providing advisers will be a strong one. I welcome the Government's statement that young people will have a choice as regards who their adviser should be.
We also welcome the statement that grants to local authorities to support care leavers will be ring-fenced. We welcome the adoption of educational guidelines and the adoption of targets for the attainment of GCSEs and GNVQs for looked-after children and those leaving care in 2001 and 2003. I know that the equal chances programme has already had a major impact.
More generally, we on these Benches welcome the introduction of quality protects action plans in January 1999, but the Social Services Inspectorate showed in the document Someone Else's Children? that however good the policies and safeguards adopted, they will be a failure unless backed by proper checks to ensure that they are applied. But do we yet have evidence that these action plans are making a difference?
Along with a great many voluntary organisations in this field despite the Government's very best intentions, measured by the loyal support test to which I referred earlier, we have concluded that the contents of the Bill, as it currently stands, are not good enough.
First, there is the major issue of support for those aged 18 to 21 years. In their consultation document, the Government were "minded" to extend duties not only to 18, but beyond that to the age of 21. Did they receive a single response against that? Why is the proposal not in the Bill? Have the Government now decided that that is not now affordable? Is this not
1166
simply the dead hand of the Treasury at work? How much of a war chest do the Government actually need before they can agree to these proposals? What estimate of prospective cost have the Government actually made?
Secondly, there is the issue, already referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as regards the 13-week threshold for eligibility. As currently drafted, it may be too hard and fast. The major voluntary organisations say that local authorities should be bound to review the cases of those with less than 13 weeks eligibility since there are numbers of young people who have not formerly been in care but in residential schools, health service provisions and so on, who may need to be treated as though they were care leavers under the Bill. Understandably, local authorities have a rather different perspective. That needs to be resolved in debate on the Bill at Committee stage.
Thirdly, unlike the consultation paper, why does the Bill make no reference to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children? Are they not at great risk if they are not brought within the scope of this Bill?
Fourthly, I refer to the power to assist those between 21 and 24 years of age who have left care and are in higher education. If they have left care—irrespective of when they started—is not that power inadequate? One of the key areas where we must improve outcomes for care leavers is in the field of education. Should not that be a duty? There have been some extremely hard cases of local authorities denying responsibility even for loans, let alone grants, and as a result young people have been unable to take up the offer of a place in higher education.
Fifthly, there is the question of an independent review panel, either nationally or in each local authority area. It is vital that there is some route by which a young person can question the initial pathway plan and its subsequent review. On occasion, there may be differences with his or her personal adviser which need to be resolved. The young person may well need an independent source of advocacy. The question is asked in the consultation document but, sadly, the answer is ducked in the Bill. I hope that we can obtain clarification from the Minister on that.
Finally, we need to ask whether there will be explicit reference in regulations under the Bill to guidance on the specific needs and experience of disabled young people leaving care. That is an area which also needs urgent clarification. However, I welcome the Minister's clarification on the scope of Clause 6.
In principle, we on these Benches support this Bill. Outcomes for care leavers are a national scandal. But if we are going to change the Children Act for the first time since it was enacted in 1989, we need to get it right. We on these Benches will work at Committee stage to do just that. We need a system which will really meet the needs of all care leavers and where the duties of corporate parents are aligned with those of natural parents; a system where these young people can finally have the opportunities in life which have been denied them for so long and which the rest of us take for granted.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, perhaps I may also express my gratitude to the Minister for the helpful introduction to this important Bill. May I also say what a pleasure it is to follow the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones? As I have the honour to be the president of the Who Cares Trust, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the warm tribute that he paid to that organisation which I believe does excellent work. I am grateful for his support of it.
Last night I had reason to express marked reservations about the Local Government Bill, so this afternoon it gives me particular pleasure to say how delighted I am to welcome the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I believe it is great credit to the Government that they have demonstrated a priority to improve the protection and quality of care and life opportunities for young people in public care. The work of the interdepartmental ministerial group, the Quality Protects initiative and the consultation document are all clear indications of the Government's commitment and concern for these young people. In this Bill the Government have gone beyond that to set out a framework to seaport young people at a critical time in their lives when they leave public care. That is very important because for too long society has expected far too much from young people who have the least in every way in terms of resources, education, family support and social help.
Most of these young people have had traumatic experiences which have scarred their young lives. Many will have been let down by the very adults they had the right to look to for their care and protection. Many will have had severely disrupted education which leaves them ill equipped to take their place in society.
But all of them have the right to expect local authorities to be a "good parent". I support the points that have already been made about the standards that we should set to judge the notion of a good parent. Many authorities, ably supported by some excellent specialist voluntary bodies, try to achieve very high standards of care for the children for whom they have a particular responsibility. That should be acknowledged and praised where it occurs. But, alas, that is not always the case. Too often young people are encouraged or allowed to leave care at the earliest opportunity. For the reasons set out by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, it is no wonder that many of them finish up in bad company or in bad practice. Too many of them end up in young offender institutions.
The Minister said that the generality of young people in this country leave home at the average age of 22. That is so, but they do not leave home finally and for ever. They leave home but have the continued support of their parents. They can fall back at any time on their help and support; a word of encouragement or consolation. They can have that support in a continuing way for many years. Young people leaving care have no such security as they face an uncertain future.
1168
It is for that reason that I would like to raise a number of points for consideration by the Minister and which he touched on his helpful opening statement. First, I so much welcome new Section 19B of the Children Act which places on local authorities the duty to assess the needs of 16 and 17 year-olds and to continue to provide a personal adviser for them until the age of 21. But would not it be better to 'make that a duty to assess and meet the needs of all young people up to the age of 2l?
Secondly, can the Minister assure your Lordships that the resources exist to ensure that local authorities will not seek ways to avoid their responsibilities which are now set out in the Bill? It would he helpful if the Minister could give an assurance that the performance of local authorities will be monitored in that way.
Thirdly, would the Minister consider making it a duty to assist young people who are now in further education, or who may be, up to the age of 24 years? Being a good parent is about having ambitions for one's children and supporting them through higher education so they can live up to their full capacity, realise their full potential, take their place in society and become useful and fulfilled citizens.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, indicated, we have had already experience of young people being denied the opportunity of further education or having it cut off at a most unwelcome time. So will the Minister consider making it a duty to assist young people in further education up to the age of 24?
Fourthly, will the Minister consider that as regards appeals the local authority should have a duty to give a young person access to an independent source of advice and advocacy? Many young people feel suspicious, to put it mildly, concerning the motivation of local authorities. Access to an independent source of advice and advocacy is an essential part in helping them to present their position and to achieve what they believe to be a reasonable outcome.
Fifthly, although I support entirely the requirement that a local authority must retain responsibility for each young person wherever that young person is living in England and Wales, is the Minister aware that some local authorities have dispersed young people in their care across many authorities and often at great distance from the home authority? Will the Minister ensure that this responsibility to be placed on local authorities will be rigorously monitored? In many instances I fear that there has been an element of out of sight, out of mind.
Finally, perhaps I may refer to the phrase "keep in touch" in new Section 23B. That phrase has a rather casual sound to it and could amount to no more than a Christmas card sent once a year. Does the Minister agree that it would be advisable to find a stronger form of words to ensure that contact is not only maintained but that it is effective, reliable and robust?
Having said that, I believe that the Bill is much needed and offers greater security, well-being and new life opportunities for young people leaving care. I hope that it will command the support of all parts of your Lordships' House.
4 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I give a very warm welcome to the Bill and thank the Minister for his clear exposition of it. This Bill completes the unfinished business left by the Children Act 1989. As one who took an active part in the whole passage of that Bill, I am delighted that support for 16 to 18 year-olds, which a number of us—Lady Faithfull, that doughty campaigner for children, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I—fought, is now to be provided. These children will have the financial, educational and pastoral support and help we knew to be essential.
I would be grateful for clarification on a few points, which I hope the Minister will be able to give when he replies to the debate. The first is: exactly what defines an eligible child? The Explanatory Notes suggest that it means children who have been looked after for a prescribed period after their 14th birthday. This could exclude children who may have had a few episodes in care up to the age of 14, returned home for two years, then suffered the break-up of their family. They would still be subject to a care order, but ineligible for the support and assistance provided in the Bill. Others in the care of a local authority are those in residential special schools or local authority boarding schools. Will they be covered by the Bill? I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about that.
My next point is the definition of a "responsible authority" as the last one that looked after the child. It is good to pin down the responsibility, but there could be problems. A young person seeking either education or a job could move around the country quite a bit and it could be quite difficult to keep in touch with him or her. Suppose that a young person in pursuit of employment moves from Hull to London. The responsible authority will still have a duty to carry out the needs assessment, prepare a pathway plan and appoint a personal adviser—all at a distance. If the funding is to follow the child, will it be the case that in practice the London authority will assess the young person's needs, prepare the pathway plan, allocate appropriate accommodation and provide the personal adviser—all funded by Hull? One would have thought that the sensible thing was for the responsible authority to be the leaving care team of the social services department of the London authority. I hope that the Minister can clear this up.
Let us consider young adults between 18 and 21 who up to a point are covered by the Bill. Will local authority duties still include the provision of suitable accommodation even though they could be eligible for housing benefit? Perhaps that is covered by Clause 6. The requirement to provide vacation accommodation in new Section 24B for those up to the age of 24 applies only to those in higher education. Would the Government be willing to think again about that and include those undertaking further education and other educational training courses, in view of the often difficult educational history experienced by these young people—frequent changes of school, for example—and often the resultant gap between their schooling and later return to education or training?
1170
Could this assistance include those who join the Armed Forces but have no home to go to when they are on leave?
I very much like the idea of the personal adviser who will be the liaison between the local authority and the care leaver—a very important person in the child's life. Is this adviser to be a trained social worker from within the authority or someone from the voluntary sector, who may perhaps be more independent? He or she will be a very important ally for the young person who may be disillusioned by the care system. There must be a genuine partnership and trust between them. Will there be training for the social workers or advisers? Will there be necessary qualifications? What relationship will there be between them and the youth support service which is to be set up by the learning and skills Bill which will soon be with us?
I have mentioned the pathway plan. I have a few doubts about the exact plans proposed which are to start following a young person's 16th birthday. That seems a little late. I believe that another noble Lord made that point. Would it not be more sensible to start at 14, when a number of decisions are made at school about subjects to be followed leading up to GCSE and the sort of career or job that will suit the pupil? Also the plan should have clear links to the young person's care plan. What mechanisms will be in place to ensure that the services outlined within the plan which could include a place on a further education course or the provision of continuing medical care—will be delivered? The Government may have good reasons for starting at 16, but I would like an explanation of the justification for that.
There is one class of young person not mentioned in the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to this—but it was in the consultative document, Me, Survive out there? on page 41. These are the unaccompanied refugee children. They are likely to fall within the responsibility of the local authority but may well not fill the eligible children requirements. Will the Government expand the eligibility requirements to include these young people who might otherwise be left without family, without employment, without accommodation, without financial support and possibly not even able to speak the language? So they really would suffer social exclusion. In April 1999 there were about 2,500 asylum seekers aged 16 and 17. Currently—I do not vouch for my figures: they came from the consultative document—there are about 400 such children being looked after by local authorities, sometimes placed in isolated bed-and-breakfast accommodation. They should be treated as "children in need", as described in the 1989 Act. A recent Amnesty International report states that,
"Central government clearly needs to give a lead in this area".
I hope that they will.
On finance, I can understand why Clause 6 was put into the Bill. There are good reasons for making funding the responsibility of one agency. But there must be adequate resources. This is essential if the Bill

1171
is going to work. This is going to be expensive, even though the benefits now paid out will be reduced. Can we have some reassurance on this matter?
My final point involves the Care Standards Bill, which is to have its Second Reading on Monday next. It is vital that that Bill works and I hope that it is implemented at the same time as this Bill, where one will be dependent upon the success of the other. We are all too aware of the crises and scandals that there have been in our children's homes. It is imperative that children should have a happy experience, loving relationships and a good education, even when they are in care. That has certainly not been the case up until now, or only in certain places. The plans for their future, making sure that they go on at 16 to further education or training for a job, in suitable accommodation, which this Bill provides, should make a far-reaching change to these very vulnerable children's future. I congratulate the Government on bringing the Bill forward. I hope that it will work well and that it will have the support of all Members of this House.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I first became conscious of this problem about six or seven years ago when I was asked by the Who Cares Trust to take a group of young people to hand in a petition at 10 Downing Street. They were a selected group but I found them extremely convincing. They then came back to the Palace of Westminster and spoke very well about their problems.
I congratulate the Government on addressing this issue. It might well have been addressed before by previous administrations, but it was not. This Government have taken it on, and hats off to them for doing so. The Bill sets out, subject to one or two issues that were raised by earlier speakers, what needs to be done. I wish to speak for a few moments about my doubts that it will be done. It is easy to set out a list of things that need to be done but there are one or two things about which we ought to be concerned.
The first, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, is the question of money, to which a number of speakers have already referred. I have the social services performance indicators 1998–99 for local authority expenditure on children in care. The gross weekly cost of placing a child in a children's home varies from a minimum of £163 to a maximum of £4,832 in another authority. I have to say that the figures are very odd. Greenwich spends £269 while Lambeth spends £1,815. Kingston-upon-Thames spends £335 while Waltham Forest spends £2,141. It would be interesting to know whether those figures have any meaning at all. If they do, they suggest that some local authorities take their responsibilities more seriously than others.
That leads me to a question. As local authorities already have discretionary powers to do most of these things, and as it is obvious that these things are desirable, why have all local authorities not been doing them? I have thought of two answers. The first is that
1172
they perceive themselves as not having enough money to do them; the second is that they perceive other things as having a higher political expediency—to put it crudely, kinds of expenditure that will attract more votes. I ask myself whether the position will be any different after the Bill becomes law. I accept that the Bill takes matters that have been discretionary and makes them mandatory. The reality is that the Government have never actually taken local authorities to court for not doing what they are supposed to do under the law, so why are we to suppose that local authorities will not "cock a snook" at the Government and not do what they are obliged to do under this Bill? The noble Lord may have a good answer to that question, but I do not understand the position.
Have the Government made an estimate of the gross costs of implementing the Bill? Will the Government provide all or part of that cash? The noble Lord indicated that they will provide part of it. Is it realistic to expect local authorities to provide the other part, given that they already appear to be unable to do what they are supposed to be doing? I support the necessity to ring-fence the cash because otherwise local authorities will spend it on lamp posts or kerbs—expenditure which attracts more votes.
The next issue is people. Who will implement the Bill? From where will the people come? I was told that in Tower Hamlets about seven or eight weeks ago 32 children were "at risk" who had not been appointed a social worker. One social worker, who has been known to us at Toynbee Hall for a very long time, has a case list of 80. One can imagine that a good many of those children will not be seen at all. A case list of 80 is absurd. I am asking the Government to be realistic about the situation and either help local authorities to find the money to implement the Bill or give them some more money to do it. It is no use making laws if nothing is going to happen.
On the question of people, in Tower Hamlets we found in regard to the Government's arrangements for learning mentors—I mentioned this point during the debate on the Queen's Speech—that the local schools had been advertising for learning mentors at some £3,000 to £4,000 a year above the salaries being paid to local youth workers, with a nine-to-five job and full school holidays. As youth workers are expected to work on a great deal less money all the hours that God made, youth workers are simply applying to become learning mentors. All the Government are doing is robbing Peter to pay Paul: leaving us with a greatly enfeebled youth service but a learning mentor service that will work. Will the same happen in this case? Will people to implement this Bill be taken from other services and thereby ensure that there is net additional benefit? The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned NVQs or diplomas in respect of training. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Caldecott Foundation and Caldecott College. Training is of fundamental importance.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the Bill treats care and aftercare as a continuum. That is good. But what no one has so far mentioned is that a child's life

1173
is a continuum before he or she was taken into care. It is in that critical period before he or she was taken into care that most of the trouble arose which caused him or her to be taken into care. To quote the outcomes for children who have been in care, in terms of crime and so on, is in a way unrealistic because it is a group of children who have been selected to go into care precisely because their life experiences have been so awful that they cannot stay with their families. We have to look at the continuum. I cannot help wondering whether the Government are looking sufficiently hard at trying to avoid the situations arising which put those children into care in the first place. I come back to my old point—more support for parents. I know that the Government are already doing a good deal in that field.
Another issue is care in the care homes. Again we come back to people. Are the Government aware that not quite 10 per cent of people working in care homes have any relevant qualification? Ninety per cent of people working in care homes have no relevant qualifications. Is it any wonder that these children are fairly lost by the time they reach the end of their experience in care? What about therapeutic care? These children have sometimes had frightful emotional experiences, abuse and so on. Is there provision for therapeutic care and for support while children are in the children's home?
Finally, I should like to refer to a subject which I raise as often as I can and shall continue to do so until I have nudged the Government into doing something about it. I refer to families without fathers. In saying this, I am not stigmatising single mothers—far from it. The problem is the fathers. I am not stigmatising fathers, because it is not the fathers' fault; it is our fault. We have evolved a society in which young men have never been taught that they have a responsibility to be a proper role model to their children. We have evolved a society in which our values are individualist. People want to develop their own lifestyle without a proper element of consideration of responsibility to others. In this context, I have looked at the Government's draft PSHE and citizenship curriculum, which is shortly to be published. I should like to ask whether this House will have an opportunity to debate that curriculum. What our children are taught in school about the values of our society is fundamental to the future of our country. The curriculum is quite good. It does not, however, make any reference to the parental responsibility of fathers. Bearing in mind that now 20 per cent of all families are families without fathers, we must look at why so many young men do not want to be, or are not capable of being, responsible fathers.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, perhaps I can provide the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, with some reassurance that not all local authorities are dilatory as regards their responsibilities to these young people. I am council leader in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and am a former chairman of
1174
the social services committee. The council that I lead has been operating a service to help care leavers for the past 10 years. It is based on a clear philosophy of sound inter-agency partnerships and effective practical assistance to those children.
The service follows a good parent model. No child being looked after is discharged before 18 years old unless he or she returns to their family or there are other special circumstances. Each care leaver has an individual plan which is prepared during his or her time with the local authority. Just before age 16, those plans are hardened into future progress. The young people can live in supported places until they are 20, and are then given help to find independent housing—when they feel able to move, and not before. Once in independent housing, they are given help to furnish and look after their home and to budget and care for themselves. They also have a key worker or supporter until they are at least 21.
I hope that from this noble Lords will understand that there is at least one local authority that has taken very seriously its parental responsibility for the children who come into its care. With no parents, or no adequate parents, they need to be able to rely on the local authority to provide them with an affectionate and supportive home, practical guidance and advice.
Therefore, I welcome the tenor and purpose behind the Bill. However, one or two areas give me cause for concern. At the danger of being seriously repetitious given the comments of previous speakers, I shall touch on them briefly. I have received some briefing from the Action on After Care Consortium. So as not to bore the House and cover the same ground again, I shall raise only two matters which were put to me by that organisation.
We need to ensure that the recommendations in Sir William Utting's review on children safeguards and in the second report of the Health Select Committee are fulfilled. My council is presently working under discretionary powers in assessing and meeting the needs of these young children. New Section 19B introduces a new duty to do that, but only when the children reach the age of 16 or 17. In our experience, that does not take the situation far enough. Young people often leave home in their 20s. Most of them need our support and care until they are 21 or 22, or well into their 20s. Many need financial support until then.
Our experience is that young people need cash, not help in kind. Most young people need to learn to manage money. If they do not have to manage money and if people feed them in all kinds of other ways, they do not learn to manage a budget and to cope with what is probably not quite enough. Does any young person ever have enough money? They have to learn to cope with what they have. I hope that under the provisions of new Section 24A the Minister will reconsider whether cash should not be the normal way of providing financial assistance. I should welcome it if he would take that idea on board.
Finally, perhaps I may comment on a matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe; namely, the ring-fencing of funding. As a council leader with a budget,

1175
my heart fails when I hear about anything being ring-fenced. Our social services budget is 22 per cent over SSA, so we are already supporting social services to a considerable extent. But ring-fencing is not usually helpful in the long run. I admit that some local authorities are less good at managing their budgets and in those cases ring-fenced funding may be better. But on the whole, if matters are left to the local authority's discretion it will ensure that money is provided in the proper way and in adequate amounts.
I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue. Children and young people in local authority care need more than proper and adequate care. They need as much care as we give to our own children.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I hope that Hansard will correct my name as it appears on the list of speakers and identify me as a female. For some reason, the Whips' Office keeps putting me down on the list as Lord Masham! I expect that I am trapped in the computer as a Lord.
I am pleased to congratulate the Government on the introduction of this Bill. I agree with them that vulnerable young people need comprehensive personal support rather than cash alone. The Bill is the best measure that the Government have undertaken, and this House may be able to make it even better by adding more protection.
For years I was a member of the board of visitors of a young offender institution. The age group at a YOI is between 15 and 21 years. In recent years, the increase in 15 and 16 year-olds coming into the YOIs is of great concern. About 40 per cent of those young people come from care. One could tell which ones came from the care system. They were much more institutionalised. They were classed as homeless. I have always felt that young people who have not had a home of their own—even if the homes were uncaring and problematical—are more vulnerable than other young people. They must feel rejected and so often their self-esteem is understandably low, even though some put on a brave front. When those young people were discharged from the young offender institution, it was no surprise that many returned soon after, simply not having been able to cope.
A Catholic chaplain from the young offender institution at Deerbolt in County Durham and I felt strongly that the young people leaving without family support needed a befriending service in an attempt to keep them on the right road. We held a seminar with the boys, who agreed that that was necessary. It is not easy to get such a scheme working on a voluntary basis. The young, enthusiastic priest was dismayed when he did not receive support from the churches in the localities from which some of the most vulnerable young people came.
That is why I am pleased that what will be new Section 23B(2) will require the local authority to appoint a personal adviser for each relevant child. Should it not already have done so?
1176
It will be interesting to see how the pathway plans develop. I shall not be surprised if local authorities find it necessary to set up some drug and alcohol treatment centres for young people. Drug and alcohol abuse has become a problem among children, but no one seems to realise that, like adults, they need treatment for addiction. Was it not the case that the only treatment centre for young people in London closed last year when the problem was getting worse?
Last year I attended a video screening by Barnado's of the terrible problems experienced by young girls in Leeds, Bradford and Halifax, many of whom had absconded from care and been sucked into a culture of drugs and prostitution. It showed the cunning cruelty of pimps. The care system has let down these youngsters. It has become part of the culture of the underworld to entice teenagers into prostitution—and the younger, the better. I hope that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it will help to stop this degrading practice involving children.
The headlines of the Ripon Gazette on Friday 3rd December read:
"Ex-carer guilty of sexual abuse.
Former child care worker Malcolm Stride was yesterday found guilty of sexually abusing young boys over a period of nine years. while he was employed at Barnardo's Spring Hill School in Ripon."
These children are at risk both within a place that they should be able to trust and in the complex world outside. I ask the Minister what checks will be made on advisers. I hope that the whole House will support the Government in trying to help vulnerable children and young people who are at immense risk from sexual and drug abuse, or just loneliness, and are being left behind in a competitive society.
To protect the most vulnerable young people who leave care will need good co-operation and communication from all the care agencies. from the education and employment agencies and from the Police and Probation Services. Looking after damaged and difficult young people needs understanding, experience and dedication as well as adequate funds.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, too often in the past we have had occasion in your Lordships' House to draw attention to the tragedy and scandal of what happens to young people who leave care. The tragedy has been well illustrated this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others, notably by reference to the fact that about 40 per cent of youngsters in YOIs have been in care and approximately 40 per cent of homeless young people have been in care. The scandal is that these are the products of the system of care for young people. The results can be seen in low educational attainment, inadequate preparation for being ejected into the cold outside world and lack of support after leaving care. All of these factors need to be tackled. It is not just the job, or the fault, of central Government. Local government and voluntary organisations such as NCH Action for Children, of which I am vice-chairman, must bear a large part of the blame and

1177
make a major contribution to putting it right. NCH has learnt from its failures and gives a high priority to providing aftercare support to young people who leave care. It now has some 50 projects. I join in the praise for the Who Cares Trust. I like to regard NCH and other bodies of that kind as part of the response. But the essence of what I have to say is that we are all part of the problem and need to be part of the solution to it.
The fact that we have the Bill before us today shows that central Government have learnt. It is not merely the Bill for which central Government deserve praise. I warmly welcome what the Government have done in respect of educational provision and more generally in the context of the social exclusion programme to tackle the interconnected issues. The proposals in this Bill in effect offer a new deal to care leavers. That is the point of central importance in this Bill. The new provisions will also have the valuable by-product of saving a great deal of money which would otherwise have been spent or, rather, wasted.
This afternoon emphasis has rightly been laid on the need for adequate resources. Every year 2,500 care leavers end up in young offender institutions. If this measure helps only one in 10 of those youngsters to stay out of YOIs it will save society about £7 million a year just for starters. The lifelong benefits to young people and to all of us will be immeasurable. But we must look at the need for resources in the context of what is to be saved. I hope that my noble friend will keep that in mind in deciding whether to target a little extra money on the most vulnerable care leavers in ways that should make a good Bill even better.
I warmly welcome the cross-party support for the Bill this afternoon. I join previous speakers in making a few modest and, I hope, constructive suggestions that perhaps will make a good Bill better. My first suggestion relates to the duty placed on local authorities to assess and meet the needs of all 16 and 17 year-olds whom they have looked after and to continue to provide a personal adviser for them until they reach the age of 21. While this is a considerable advance on the present situation, there is a strong case for extending the duty on local authorities to assess and meet needs up to the age of 21. As NCH projects have emphasised, the most vulnerable are typically those who are most difficult to work with. That was one of the main reasons why Utting recommended that the discretionary powers in Section 24 of the Children Act 1989 should be converted into a duty and that young people should be supported up to the age of 21. To restrict support up until the age of 18 to a hard-pressed personal adviser may simply mean that the care precipice is shifted forward and that young people fall over the edge at 18 rather than 16. It is an improvement but it is not a situation that we want or that we would tolerate for our own children or grandchildren.
My second point relates to the power to provide assistance for expenses related to employment, education and training. The change proposed in Clause 24 would give local authorities power to provide grants to care leavers up to the age of 24 to
1178
assist with expenses connected with education or training. At present their power is exercisable for the most part up to the age of 21, so that sounds like an advance. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others have said, some local authorities are very reluctant to use their powers. There are good and poor local authorities, and that is why I believe that the power to provide assistance should be converted into a duty. The aim to improve the employability and skill levels of young care leavers is absolutely critical to this Bill.
One NCH project has drawn attention to the case of a young man who at 17 is still the subject of a care order and is attending a carpentry course. The authority will not help him with bus fares to get to the course which cost him £8.25 per week. All participants on the course have to wear steel-capped shoes. The young lad could not afford the £40 cost and faced exclusion from the course until the NCH project suggested it might contact the local press. There are still problems ahead. In time the lad will need to purchase tools. By that time he will probably be out of care. The local authority has said that it will not help with any further expenses. Many good local authorities are using their powers sympathetically, but unless these are made into duties I fear that some authorities will continue to fail their care leavers.
My final point relates to Clause 6, exclusion from benefits, to which reference has been made. As my noble friend, Lord Hunt, reminded us, there are two possible sources of support at the moment—central Government and local government. Far too often this has led to unhelpful wrangling over which has responsibility. In general I welcome Clause 6, which offers both the establishment of a clear national minimum standard of support and removes the typical entitlements to benefit, except for lone parents and disabled people. This should at least ensure consistency of treatment.
As has been said, it is possible for a care leaver to become estranged from his or her local authority, just as a young person can fall out with his or her natural parents. His or her attitude may be regarded as unreasonable, even bolshie, but it may none the less be very real and totally intractable. I welcome the assurance given by my noble friend Lord Hunt that there will be a fall-back safety net for those who could be among the most vulnerable and exposed young people. Not to provide one could force them to live, as it were, off the land—and we all know what that means in terms of squatting, petty crime, even in terms of prostitution and drug pushing. We know, too, that once a young person has developed a pattern of living of that kind it is extremely hard to break out. I welcome my noble friend's clarification of what will happen if a young person falls out with a local authority and into this trap.
However, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I should like to press him a little further on this point. What provision will be made in the exceptional cases where a youngster cannot come to terms with even indirect contact with his or her local authority? Will my noble friend consider providing access to the severe hardship

1179
allowance—perhaps conditional upon a rigorous but sympathetic independent examination of why the young person is unable to maintain a relationship with a local authority—and ensure that appropriate action is taken?
In the debate, emphasis has rightly been laid on the need to listen to care leavers. I am sure that my noble friend and the Government he represents will set a good example by listening to the constructive suggestions that have been made today for—I repeat—making a good Bill even better.
4.43 p.m.
The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, I should like to say something about the Bill from a criminal justice perspective. In so doing, I declare an interest as a serving police officer in the Thames Valley, where I am currently head of youth justice for the force.
It is well known that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by young people, especially by young males. The 1994 Audit Commission report, Misspent Youth, records that about a quarter of all known offenders are under the age of 18 and that together they are responsible for some 7 million offences each year. But it is important in the context of the debate to remember that young people are also more likely to be victims of crime than adults, with 16 to 19 year-olds having, for example, the highest risk of being assaulted.
Although there is no way of predicting accurately which individuals will offend, we know that young people in certain circumstances are at much greater risk of doing so. Those circumstances may relate to the family; for example, where there has been neglect by parents, family conflict or the absence of a good relationship with either parent; where family attitudes have condoned anti-social and criminal behaviour; where there is a parent or sibling with a criminal record; or where family income is low. Young people who say that their attachment to their family is weak are more likely to report that they have committed offences, as are those who have experienced cruelty and abuse at the hands of their parents.
The risk may arise from the young person's relationship, or lack of it, with his or her school; for example, through low achievement, beginning in a primary school; aggressive behaviour or bullying. Young people who truant or who are excluded from school are also more likely to offend. Some 42 per cent of offenders sentenced in the youth court have been excluded from school, while half of truants offend compared to a quarter of non-truants. Research has shown a significant correlation between those young people who experience difficulties of various sorts within the educational setting and those who demonstrate delinquent behaviour.
The risk might develop from the young person's relationships will individuals, friends or from the community more generally. I refer to peer group pressure to offend, unstable living conditions, lack of training and employment, and drug and alcohol abuse, all of which have been shown to be factors which increase the risk of offending.
1180
There is also evidence to suggest that aspects of health are correlated in some respects with offending behaviour. The review by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons in 1997, for example, indicated that 40 per cent of young people in custody presented with some long-standing physical illness, almost double the figure for the general population. This is not to assert that a causal link exists between ill health and a tendency towards delinquency, but the factors associated with the risk of becoming involved in offending may also predispose young people to adopt unhealthy lifestyles.
Those who experience many or all of these risk factors throughout their childhood and teenage years are at the highest risk of getting caught up in a cycle of anti-social behaviour, including offending, which it is difficult to break. The association appears to be a strong one, with over 80 per cent of young males who experience four or five of such influences being actual offenders.
It is only realistic to suppose that many young people in care will have been exposed to such risk factors. For some, those risks will have led directly to the young person's initial placement in care. Evidence of such risks is not difficult to find. For example, local audits taken following the Audit Commission's 1994 study, Seen but not heard, found that nearly half of all children of school age living in local authority residential homes were not attending school on the day the auditor called, and one-third were not receiving any formal education. The main reasons for their non-attendance were being excluded from school or refusing to attend.
Other research in 1989 by Centrepoint suggested that nearly 60 per cent of young homeless people had been in social services care at some point in their lives, while 39 per cent of all male prisoners under 21 have been looked after by the local authority at some stage in their childhood.
At the time of leaving care, such young people are, one might feel, particularly vulnerable. The 5,000 or so a year who leave at present do so at the age of 16 or 17 while, as the consultation document preceding the Bill indicated, the average age for leaving home for the population as a whole is 22. As my noble friend Lord Laming pointed out, the level of support available to those two groups is unlikely to be comparable.
Many continue to move frequently after leaving care—40 per cent experiencing one or more moves and 10 per cent making four or more moves in the first three to nine months. Many find themselves living in unstable conditions in temporary accommodation with little support and in areas where the levels of criminality and drug misuse are high.
The measures in the Bill will, I believe, enable young people to prepare more effectively for the future and provide a better degree of support as they move towards independence. The content of the proposed pathway plan, or that suggested in the consultation document, seeks to address directly the very range of risk factors to which I referred earlier: education; employment; health; accommodation; personal and financial support; and life skills. With the young

1181
person's adviser fulfilling what seems in many respects to be the role of a mentor, there is an opportunity for a one-to-one relationship to be established, and from that a young person may find greater confidence and raised levels of achievement—academic, personal or job related.
However, as the experience of a growing number of mentoring projects in this country and elsewhere has shown, high quality staff, careful recruitment and training, and well constructed programmes will be required if the mentoring relationship is to be a successful one. Can the Minister say anything more about the guidance on the recruitment and training of the young person's adviser referred to in the consultation document? In the debate on 22nd November, my noble friend Lord Northbourne—he mentioned it again today—referred in a different context to experienced youth workers being siphoned off into higher-paid posts as learning mentors for which exactly the same qualifications were required. I wonder whether the Minister has any concerns that similar difficulties could arise when the recruitment of young persons' advisers is undertaken.
The success with which care leavers make their transition to independence and the extent to which they are given a more equal chance of a fulfilling life should be of concern to us all since their interests and those of society are in these circumstances so interdependent. For such reasons as these, I warmly welcome the intentions of the Bill.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Elton>: My Lords, it is a great and somewhat unusual pleasure to be able to offer an unreserved welcome to the intentions of a government Bill. It is a great and even more unusual experience, in particular with the reformation of this House, to be sandwiched between a couple of hereditary Earls younger than myself, both with more experience than I have of dealing hands on with the problems of disadvantaged young people. We are fortunate to have retained their services.
In welcoming the Bill, I acknowledge the debt of gratitude due also to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and his friends in the Who Cares Trust in pushing public concern in the right direction. My interest arises from my interest in juvenile offenders, acquired when I was the Minister responsible for prisons. I have bored your Lordships with that often enough not to repeat it. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, nods—in a rather hurtful way!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I nodded to indicate that we had heard the noble Lord. We always listen attentively because we always have a lot to learn from him.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall try to change the tune in order to retain the noble Baroness's attention.
It is not necessary for me to repeat the various indicators that being in care is a clear predictor of criminal involvement, sad though that is. I see a
1182
parallel with another predictor to which the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, referred: exclusion from school. As president of the DIVERT Trust, I declare an interest in this matter. Because they are so at risk, we have been developing mentoring schemes for dealing with children who are on the edge of exclusion from school. The Bill deals with children on the edge of exclusion from society by appointing not mentors but personal advisers. The Minister repeatedly referred to them as "young persons' advisers". I wonder whether we have the opportunity to avoid a divergence of jargon. With a tiny amendment at Committee stage, perhaps we could change the name in the Bill so that it fits with what the Minister is currently making popular jargon.
A mentor, a personal adviser, or a young person's adviser, is a strange, precious and rare creature. He or she has to be available—that is, accessible. In some urban authorities, he or she is not difficult to find from local authority personnel. However, in local authorities with a wide geographic area, that may be extremely difficult. It is even more difficult to find someone who is sympathetic to the young person.
Crucial to the plan in the Bill is the development of pathway plans. It is no good having the most splendid, detailed and compellingly convincing pathway plan for a young person if the young person does not think that he or she owns it. It takes great skill to guide a young person into adopting a pathway plan which you, as an adult, think that that young person should adopt. It does not follow that because the Government wish this to be done by local authorities, and even though local authorities are eager and willing to do so, those personnel will be available. They will need training even if they are in post. We have already heard of the shortage of training in the care system—hence a good deal of its trouble— and it is no good passing children from one set of untrained supervision to another.
I have another word of caution for the Minister. My experience in various guises of young children is that when they get into trouble they are almost always in rebellion against authority. Authority is expressed by them through the contemptuous word "them": "They won't let us do it"; "It's all because of them"; and "them" represents a series of concentric circles of authority which may start close to the home and then embrace the teacher, the probation officer, the social worker, the policeman, or any employee of local authority.
The people required who are in post may not be geographically accessible. They will need training; and they will need personal characteristics which are pretty rare to find. At this point I do not feel that I have to apologise for bringing forward again the voluntary sector or for suggesting to the Minister that it may be a good source of trainable or trained mentors. I do not put forward any claim on behalf of the DIVERT Trust. I put forward a claim on behalf of the voluntary sector. There are many others involved in the voluntary sector besides the trust. I ask the Minister to recognise, and to ensure that local authorities recognise, that it is not a source of cut-price personal

1183
advisers, or young people's advisers. Those people have to be trained. If not, they will not be efficient. They are a valuable resource which will be lost if those whose skills should be used in this direction are deployed in raising funds to gain compensation for employment.
There has been a great change in thinking in the past 10 or 12 years, not only by this Government, but also by the previous government. I came into government in 1979. We inherited an assumption that the Government would provide the resources with which the voluntary sector could do things which the government otherwise would be doing. That tide of money ceased. When there was a change of government, there was an expectation—and I must say it tempted noble Lords on these Benches with my inclinations almost to thoughts of disloyalty—that the incoming government would have a different view and that core funding might again become available for the voluntary sector to do things which otherwise government would do. That has not happened except in a few notable cases. I draw your Lordships' attention to that because it is central to the whole of the voluntary sector. The matter needs to be addressed if that sector is not to become moth-eaten and overburdened.
Finally as regards the young people's advisers, the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, referred to a reconciliation service once the relationship has broken down. Of course, once broken it is difficult to restore. However, it is so precious that if the Government have retreated from their view, they should be encouraged to return to it.
As regards the legislation, I note that the Minister has no fewer than 13 order-making powers, all of which have been given a good bill of health by the scrutiny committee. However, I believe that two in particular—those in new Sections 23D and 23E— might with advantage be published in draft before we complete our debates on the Bill, and preferably before Committee stage. The new Section 23E relates to regulations concerning the pathway plan and reviews of the same. They are central to the Bill and to the relationship with the adviser.
Finally, I join the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in asking what on earth all this is going to cost. Not only is there a new duty to be paid for, but certain incomes which young people would receive as benefits will have to be provided by the local authority. Linked to the questions of what it will cost and how it will be met is the question we so often forget to ask in this House. After the "Bill do now pass" debate, we sit back with a sigh of relief and think that we have done a good job, but no one bothers to ask when the legislation will be implemented. The date of the coming into effect of the Bill is connected to the degree of enthusiasm we can show for it. I hope that the Minister will show that it will not be before the resources are available, but it will not be later than 18 months.
5.1 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady David, drew attention to asylum seekers, who are left out of the Bill. I work with asylum seekers and I hope that the Government will consider what it is like for children who know that their parents are being bombed or who have lost members of their family and do not know whether they are alive or dead. That should come into the Government's consideration of their treatment of asylum seekers, particularly those in such situations. A theme of the debate has been the Government's emphasis on corporate parenting. That is an important principle. But we should remember that these children are extraordinary; they are a selected group, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, pointed out. They have had the worst of times, so in some ways they are unlike our children and need more help and support for a longer period.
The tenor of this Bill reflects the Government's commitment to the most vulnerable in society. It is widely welcomed by voluntary organisations 'which interest themselves in the well-being of looked-after children.
As has been pointed out, currently children are being forced out of care prematurely. They are often unsupported and some 25 per cent become homeless within two years. One quarter of looked-after girls have had a baby by 16 and half are mothers within two years of leaving, compared with one in 25 of the population at that age. The system has failed them and has left a legacy of unhappiness for the next generation.
In beginning to remedy this, the introduction of more support for longer and of an allocated young person's assistant to oversee that support is most welcome. The pathway plan, a strategy for the future formulated by the young person and his advisers, is also an innovation to be applauded.
Similar plans are used in foyers for young people who have been homeless. Their use is well-established good practice and has the effect of making clear to the young person his rights and responsibilities. They encourage independence and make clear the help available to achieve it.
The Bill is a good start in addressing very serious problems, but, in common with the noble Lords, Lord Northbourne and Lord Elton, I feel that it needs to be more realistic. The consultation document, Me, Survive Out There? states:
"The proposed new arrangements need the trust of young people if they are to work".
This is indeed true. If children leaving care reject the help of a young person's assistant, it would appear that they are worse off than before. Under this legislation, they would be eligible only for severe hardship benefit—perhaps not even that. Have the Government conducted research into the probable number of the 5,000 or so leaving care each year who will not trust the new arrangements?

1185
Michael Little, of Dartington's Social Research Unit, in summarising his work for the Department of Health on children in residential care, writes:
"The starting point has to be the needs of looked after children".
Have the Government taken sufficient steps to see that they are aware of the particular needs of these children?
My researches suggest that while the children concerned have been consulted and those who have left care have been involved in informing policy, neither the Government nor the Civil Service have spent time going into a residential home on a regular basis, developing relationships with cared-for children and learning first hand the particular challenges they face. It may not be the custom so to do, but the failures of the system indicate the consequences of those formulating policy being too far removed from the experience of those for whom they legislate.
I have that experience. I have not worked in residential care, but I have worked in an intermediate treatment centre—an establishment for young people with behavioural problems—and with young people in a psychiatric unit. Many of the young homeless people with whom I have worked during the past year have spent time in care. In addition, I have reflected on my experience and consulted with those who have studied the development of children and sought to heal those who have been damaged.
Michael Little, in the same summary quoted earlier, writes:
"Some of society's most damaged young people are placed in residence; including those convicted of grave crimes; and the perpetrators, as well as the victims of sexual abuse. Typical characteristics staff encounter include chaotic behaviour; fear of going to school; a sense of being lost, having no one and no future; offending; inappropriate sexual behaviour".
Other research finds that 30 per cent of 10 year-olds going into care have clinical depression. Such children are on the horns of a dilemma. Because they lacked parenting, they need a surrogate parent to walk with them on the journey into adulthood. But because they feel they were poorly treated by those who should have cared for them most, they distrust caring adults. Alienated, only time and a crisis may lead them to seek help.
Therefore, I urge the Government to reach further than the Bill stipulates. As many speakers have said today, there needs to be a clear and explicit commitment to extend the full duty to assess and meet the needs of all care leavers up to and including the age of 21 rather than the age of 18 as provided in the Bill as it stands. Indeed, this is only what the Government were minded to do in their response to the recommendations in Sir William Utting's Children's Safeguards Review. That would recapture some of the lost sheep—those who become disillusioned with premature independence—and realise their need for support. It would also ensure that others do not become lost.
Not to feel loved by one's parents is not similar to losing one's job, or losing a relative, or missing out on education. An inadequately parented child feels
1186
useless and empty. No matter how much that child does right and no matter how kind people are towards that young person, there will be one certainty in his or her mind. He will say to himself, "I am empty and useless. All my achievements are illusions and the kindness of others is misplaced and will not last". There are things to be done about such a state of mind, but its persistence and perversity must not be underestimated. Such young people mature late and may have to go through years of degradation before realising that they need emotional help, training, education and proper accommodation.
I ask the Government also to consider giving local authorities discretion to assist care leavers beyond the age of 24. A wanderer, drug addict, rough sleeper or criminal may come to realise that he is wasting his life. Local authorities should be able to consider aiding him to return to education, to take up training, to find proper accommodation or to begin a course of counselling. A good parent exists not to prevent a lazy child from taking responsibility for his actions but to welcome a child, however old, who is ready to mend his ways. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, conveyed that point extremely clearly.
Over the next few months I shall be spending a couple of hours weekly working in a residential home for looked-after children. I should warmly welcome the company of advisers to the Minister and of Members of your Lordships' House. I should so like them to be able to tell me that my concerns are unfounded or to join me in calling for the Government to go even further than they are at present in meeting the real needs of children in care.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging and, if I may say so, very encouraging debate on the Bill. It has been a real pleasure to debate a piece of legislation where everyone agrees about what we are trying to achieve. That is consistent with the consultation on Me, Survive Out There?, where well over 80 per cent of the responses received supported the overall thrust of the Government's policy. However, since the process of working out the policy there has of course been a great deal of interest in the details of implementation, as we have heard this afternoon.
I should like first to respond to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has so much important first-hand knowledge of the experience of vulnerable young people. I fully accept that we must ensure that, as far as possible, we have a system that enables us to engage with people who, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, regard the system and the state very much as "them" and not "us". The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, was also much to the point when he talked about young people as the victims of crime and as offenders. He made a connection between young people in such situations and failure at school, exclusion from school, unwanted parenthood and failure to gain employment skills, which links back to the whole issue of support, or lack of it, for so many children in care over the past few years.

1187
Because the noble Earl raised that point, it is important to stress that the Bill must be seen in the wider context of enabling us to give greater support to those troubled young people. Last year, the Government's response to many of those issues set out a range of practical measures to address the issues originally raised in the Utting report.
In particular, to tackle the defects of the care system, we established the Quality Protects programme, which was launched in September last year. It is a three-year programme of radical overhaul of children's services which concentrates especially on the public care system and covers all aspects of the service: attitudes, management, standards, service delivery, training and value for money. It sets a series of new objectives for children's services as well as covering the protection of children and suitable secure placements. Its provisions include ensuring that children looked after gain maximum life chances from educational opportunities, health care and social care. Therefore, the Bill must be considered in the context of our overall approach in those areas.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, opened his remarks by stressing that, for the programme to work, it is essential that young people have ownership of the process. I agree with him. That is what makes the role of the young person's adviser so crucial. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, particularly stressed that point. It is a crucial role. The young person's advisers will have to give support when it is needed. They will have to ensure that the multi-agency assessment and pathway planning process is comprehensive and properly conducted. They will have to represent the young person's wishes and negotiate an agreed pathway plan between the local authority and the. young person.
One can see that that will be an important and skilled job. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that such people will be vetted for their suitability. The young person's adviser must be a person whom the young person may trust. They must be committed, readily accessible and prepared for intensive contact with the young person should a crisis arise. I accept the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, and my noble friend Lady David about the crucial importance of the training and development of those people. I assure noble Lords that we shall be discussing that issue with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services and issuing guidance to local authorities in that area.
Furthermore, training and development must be considered also in the context of a Bill that we shall shortly be debating on the development of a general social care council which is in itself designed to raise the professional and training standards for the million-strong social care workforce. A number of questions were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about where the young person's advisers will come from. Of course some will be directly employed by the local authority from its existing workforce; perhaps from some of its current care-leaver teams. It is worth making the point
1188
that, although the performance of local government has been variable, we can—as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested—point to a number of local authorities which have developed extremely good practice as the essential foundations on which we are building our approach.
However, it might well be of advantage and local authorities may well wish to employ experienced foster parents in such a role. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that people from the voluntary sector will be well placed to be appointed to such posts. I assure him that in the guidance that we give to local authorities we shall encourage a diverse approach to the employment of the right people to do the job.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether our guidance would make mention also of the specific needs of disabled young people. I assure him that that will be the case. Many comments were made by noble Lords, particularly by my noble friend Lord Murray, about the issue of troubled young people who run away from local authorities. We perhaps must assume that, even with the new arrangements in place, such young people will find it difficult to keep in touch with the support arrangements that we wish to implement. Clearly, we must ensure that there is emergency provision to pick up such young people and a support system flexible enough to encourage them back on terms which they can accept. I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I do not have figures on the estimated numbers that I can give to him—it is extremely difficult to calculate—but if I can dig up any more information, I shall certainly do so and write to the noble Earl.
In relation to emergencies, as I said in my opening remarks, those young people will still be eligible for emergency help from any local authority in whose area they arrive. As happens now, they may turn up at refuges, such as Centrepoint, or at night shelters. The emergency provision should see them through the short time it takes to re-establish contact with the responsible authority.
Our new arrangements are designed to be as responsive as possible to the young person who is disaffected with his local authority for whatever reason. We believe that those arrangements will make it easier for the young people to remain within the support arrangements. For example, if a young person breaks off the relationship with his local authority, he need do no more than keep in touch with his young person's adviser in order to be supported anywhere in the country. Under this system, money, resources and support truly follow the young person wherever he may be in a way which, I believe, did not happen in the health service.
The other point I wish to make on this matter is that, as I said earlier, the young person's adviser is crucial. If a young person loses confidence in his adviser, the option and ability exist to change the adviser. I hope that that will be helpful also in overcoming the problem of disengagement.

1189
That brings us to the issue of the availability of money to young people. I very much accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that part of the process is to help young people with money management skills. I believe that the pathway plan, with its revisions, allows people to move along that pathway at different speeds. Therefore, some young people will be able to be given a budget and will be independent. Others might start with pocket money but with everything else managed for them. There then might be stages which move the young person along the pathway plan towards independence. On that basis, it is not appropriate to standardise levels of support because the circumstances of each young person will be very different.
All of that presupposes that local authorities are up to the task. I believe we all accept that there is enormous variation in the performance of local authorities in this area. However, as I said earlier, the foundation on which we are building is that some local authorities have made a very good contribution. In terms of performance management, which is crucial to this issue, the Social Services Inspectorate has a key role to play in monitoring the introduction of new arrangements to the system for the performance assessment of social service authorities. The evaluation of policy will be part of an evaluation package for the Quality Protects programme which is currently being developed. We shall use inspections and research, and we shall scrutinise authorities' reports and their management action plans. At the end of the day, if we are not happy with the performance of local authorities, we can intervene and set targets.
A number of points were made about the financial arrangements. First, I refer to ring-fencing. I understand the concerns of noble Lords that ring-fencing takes away the discretion of local authorities. However, I believe that that is entirely justified in developing policy such as this. The intention is that ring-fencing will last for one Comprehensive Spending Programme. The Act is expected to come into force in 2001. Therefore, it will last for one year of the current CSR and for another three years. It is a four-year programme. At the end of that period we would expect the ring-fencing element to be taken away. By that time, the system should be up and running and we shall have been able to satisfy ourselves that local authorities are performing in the way we want.
I have been asked about the figures. I am a little reluctant to say too much because it has been very difficult to estimate the figures. However, essentially we are talking of something in the order of £250 million, £200 million of which will come from the existing budget that local authorities spend in this area; another £30 million from the Quality Protects programme; and we believe that the transfer of funds from DSS will provide another £20 million. Clearly, how we allocate budgets to local authorities will be most important. We are concerned that the allocations will be sensitive to local needs. We shall seek the views of the Local
1190
Government Association and other relevant bodies, and we shall be working on this matter over the next few months.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the situation in relation to Scotland. The current law does not allow authorities across the Border to transfer funds. Therefore, the financial regime cannot follow a young person across the Border. But the young person's adviser should still keep in touch. Of course, our hope is that Scotland will legislate in a similar way to us. Certainly, constructive discussions have taken place between the officials of the relevant departments. However, the Bill allows for a transitional arrangement if there is a gap between the enactment of this Bill and any Bill in Scotland.
Noble Lords asked about the pathway plan and in particular when it will come into play. As the Bill states, it comes into play when the young person reaches the age of 16. However, there is no reason why preparations and discussion cannot take place in the preceding period. I very much take the point of noble Lords who suggest that a long period of preparation is needed so that when the young person reaches 16, the plan does not come as a shock to them; they know what is going to happen; it has been agreed and they have ownership of it.
So far as concerns keeping in touch, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and my noble friend Lady David referred to the issue of people moving across the country. We do not believe that that should present a problem. With the definition of a responsible authority, we know that that authority will remain responsible for a young person wherever that young person lives. The authority retains its duties to keep in touch, to carry out the needs assessment, to ensure that the pathway plan is effected, to have a personal adviser in place and to provide the necessary support. I accept that, if someone comes from the North of England to London, there may well be advantages in an arrangement between their local authority and a local authority in London whereby the young person's adviser remains in close contact with that person. There is no reason at all why local authorities should not come to co-operative arrangements to that effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, asked whether "keeping in touch" was rather too loose and light a term. We regard keeping in touch as being an extremely important responsibility. We shall make it clear to local authorities that keeping in touch should embrace a robust process so that as far as possible we do not allow people to disappear or slip through the net.
My noble friend Lady David asked a number of points about the 13-week prescribed period to qualify as a relevant or eligible child. The reason for that provision is that we do not want to draw into the new system young people who are looked after as children and who happen to return to care briefly, say, at the age of 16. The new arrangements are intended to help those who need them and not to interfere in the lives of those who settle elsewhere.

1191
I understand that a number of points in relation to that qualification need to be teased out. No doubt we shall do that in Committee. But we shall try to frame regulations which seek to ensure that people do not slip through the net and, as with other regulations, they will be subject to extensive consultation.
The issue of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children was raised. Where local authorities take asylum seekers into care, those children will be fully entitled to the benefits of the new arrangements. In addition, under the Children Act, local authorities have a responsibility to provide services for children in need in their area.
I turn now to the issue of 18 to 21 year-olds. I understand the points being made in that regard. Indeed, the Government have made it clear that they are committed to that principle when funding permits. That remains the situation. We have put in place the legal framework so that, when finances permit, that could be brought into play. However, I must make it clear that, if that were to happen, it would be a top-up on benefit availability, because 18 to 21 year-olds would retain their benefits in contrast with 16 and 17 year-olds, whose benefit entitlement is essentially being transferred from the DSS to the DoH.
I believe that in the time available, I have answered most of the points raised. If I have missed any, I shall be happy to write to noble Lords. I conclude by saying that this has been an extremely encouraging and constructive debate. I welcome the contributions made by many noble Lords. I know that there are many points of detail which we shall need to debate in Committee but I am encouraged by the support which noble Lords have given to the principles of the Bill. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Enlargement of the EU: ECC Report
5.31 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso Lord St. John of Bletso rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Enlargement of the EU. Progress and Problems (21st Report, Session 1998–99, HL Paper 118).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity, at the end of my four-year term as a member of Sub-Committee A, to present to the House this report. I am sad that the chairman of the sub-committee which produced the report, Lord Grenfell, is no longer here to move the Motion himself. I sincerely hope that it will be sooner rather than later that he is suitably elevated back into your Lordships' House to resume the enormous contribution which he has made over the years, both in our committees and in the Chamber. I know I speak for all members of the sub-committee when I pay tribute to his chairmanship, which has enabled us to come to grips with this complex issue in the limited time available and, with no hesitation, to reach a unanimous report.
While I am obviously sad to be leaving the sub-committee, I wish also to express my sadness that it and the House have lost the wisdom and experience of Lord Ashburton. But on a brighter note, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who will be the new chairman of the sub-committee.
The inquiry involved a great deal of hard work by all the members of the sub-committee whose names are listed in Appendix 1. We were ably assisted by our specialist adviser, Jackie Gower, who shared with us a wide expertise on the questions we were examining. I am grateful too for the invaluable support and sound counsel of our Clerk, Dr Elizabeth Hopkins.
Sub-Committee A first conceived the idea of this inquiry before the Summer Recess. At that time we thought it would be useful to examine the progress of the five central and eastern European countries—the so-called first-wave applicants—which were negotiating to join the European Union. That followed our previous inquiry and report from two years before in November 1997.
However, the recent announcement on 13th October by the president of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, of the increasing urgency to speed-up the process of enlargement made the subject even more topical than we had originally expected. The day before our first meeting, the Commission published its own report on the progress of all the countries which had applied to become members of the European Union and included its proposals for a significant acceleration of the enlargement process. So, of course, with that in mind, we expanded our inquiry to include those proposals.
The publication of this report and your Lordships' debate on it today could not be more timely. At the end of this week the Commission's proposals are to be considered by the European Council in Helsinki. We are glad that we were able to produce this report in time to contribute to the debate. Our only regret was that the timescale limited us as to the amount of evidence that we were able to take. Our witnesses are listed in Appendix 2 to the report.
We had an extremely valuable session with Mr Nikolaus van der Pas, the Commission's Director-General for Enlargement, who has been leading the negotiating team. We heard also the Government's position from the recently appointed Minister for Europe, Keith Vaz. In fact, that was on the ninth day of his holding that post. We heard eloquent presentations from Ministers from the Republics of Hungary, Poland and Slovenia and received welcome written evidence from the Government of the Republic of Estonia. We regretted not being able to cast our net more widely but time simply did not allow that.
Nevertheless, we believe that we have managed to identify some of the most important points and to express a view on them. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has been generous enough to describe the report as providing,
"a thoughtful and perceptive analysis of the issues involved in the negotiation and accession process".
We are grateful to the Government for that and for the Government's own achievement in providing a response to the report in the unavoidably short time between its publication and this debate. I shall mention some of the major points of the Government's response as I take your Lordships through the report, although you will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with all of them.
As your Lordships will know, negotiations on accession to the European Union are already under way with five central and eastern European states—the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia—and Cyprus is also included. The Commission now proposes to open negotiations with the other five central and eastern European states—Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia—as well as with Malta. It judges that those countries are ready to start negotiations because they meet the so-called political criteria which were agreed at the 1993 June Copenhagen European Council. That means that those countries are judged to have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for the protection of minorities. In addition, the Commission believes that those countries have proved their willingness to take the necessary measures towards complying with the Copenhagen economic criteria, which are,
"the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with the competitive pressure and the market forces within the Union."
Moreover, the Commission judges that it is ready to move towards taking on the obligations of membership, including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union.
Our report welcomes the proposal to speed up the enlargement of the European Union. The recent tragic events over the past two years in the Balkans have made it vital to bring in the countries of central and eastern Europe as soon as possible and to send a positive message to countries such as Bulgaria and Romania which have achieved a lot of restructuring but certainly have not gone far enough to meet the European Union's standards.
As we said in our concluding comments in the summary at paragraph 30, the term "political imperative" is for once not out of place. Peaceful co-existence in Europe is at stake. So we are glad that the Government have been pressing for the process of enlargement to be accelerated. But we caution against raising false hopes and expectations. It is important for the new applicant countries to realise that they will proceed at their own pace and that they will be admitted to membership of the European Union only when they are judged to have satisfied all the criteria. That is not a judgment which will be made simply by the Commission. It will have to be ratified by all the existing member states.
The standards which are incorporated in the acquis communautaire are high. The applicant countries certainly have much work to do in order to meet them, which, in many cases, will take a long time. We did not
1194
think it would be possible or, indeed, sensible to try to agree a fixed timetable for accession negotiations. As our report states, that does not prevent applicant countries from having their own targets. We agree with the Government that these can be a useful spur to activity in applicants' administrations but suggest that they must be seen more as aspirational. The European Union cannot commit itself to allowing countries to join on the basis of a pre-arranged timetable. I certainly agree with the Government's response that it is important in many areas of the acquis to pursue implementation before accession.
We were also concerned that the first wave applicant countries might be over-optimistic about their target dates for joining. We recognised the enormous efforts those countries are making to transform not only their economies but also their social and political structures. We were particularly struck when the Polish Minister emphasised to us:
"the people arc making the changes, not the Administration and not the Government but the people".
But we concluded that, however hard those countries tried, they could not realistically hope to achieve everything at once. There was still a lot of work to be done, particularly to develop administrative and judicial capacity so that the new legal framework could be implemented in practice.
That brings me to the vexed question of what are transition periods. Should applicants be excused from having to meet the full standards of the European Union in the acquis communautaire immediately, or should that be avoided because it would create a two-tier Europe? In paragraph 169 we urged the Government to recognise the dilemma:
"there is no point in pretending that this question will not arise. Member states must come to grips with the fact that the price of accelerated enlargement may well be the acceptance of what would amount to a two-tier EU membership for several years to come. We think this is a price which the European Union can and should pay, though we emphasise that such a decision should not be allowed to remove the pressure for new Members to play their full part as soon as possible. If they want the right political outcome, governments—including our own—must err on the side of generosity rather than restrictiveness".
If the process of enlargement is to be accelerated, as the Government say they want, transition periods are bound to be necessary in a number of cases. It is generally recognised that that may be needed in areas such as environmental infrastructure which does not directly affect the single market. But we concluded that they might also be necessary in some other areas directly related to the single market and even in the case of agriculture as a result of the failure of existing member states to face up to the real need for reform. We thought that we had detected, in our initial evidence from the Minister of State for Europe, Keith Vaz, a hardening of the Government's attitude towards allowing transition periods. However, I am glad to note from the Secretary of State's written response to our report that we were wrong and that the Government recognise that transition periods have played a part in every previous accession, including our own.
I still wonder whether the Government have really come to grips with the difficult choice we pose in our report. I hesitate to use the word "fudge" but it is hard to find a word to describe the conclusion of the Government's response, which states:
"The acceptance of limited transition periods does not imply a two-tier Europe".
Your Lordships may consider that much depends on the definition of "limited" and, indeed, "two-tier". In our view, if accession is to be speeded up, the European Union will have to allow realistic transition of quite extensive periods for quite a long time. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will tell us in her reply why the Government do not see that as a problem.
I have concentrated so far on the work which candidate countries have to do in order to apply for accession. However, there is also an enormous amount of work for existing member states to do. The European Union must make the changes to its policies, financial provisions and structures which are necessary to enable it to accept new members.
As far as concerns policies, our report is reasonably optimistic. We judge that the decisions taken at the Berlin European Council in March this year on the future of the structure and cohesion funds are accession-friendly. But we say:
"we remain convinced that more radical reform of the CAP is needed, and we hope—and expect—that the forthcoming WTO negotiations will bring renewed pressure for this."
We must ensure that enough funding is available to make enlargement possible. The Government assure us that the current arrangements are adequate. We hope that proves to be true. I agree that the own resources ceiling is adequate. However, if the financial perspective turns out to be a constraint in future years, we urge that it should be reviewed so that adequate provision for the costs of enlargement can be made in the annual budget of the European Union.
Finally, it is essential that we adapt the institutions of the existing European Union to reflect the increase in numbers to the fold. We must be ready to receive new members as soon as they are ready to join. At the very least that will mean making difficult decisions on the size and composition of the Commission, the weighting of votes in the Council and the possible extension of qualified majority voting. The Commission and some member states wish to make other changes at the same time. Our concern is that that should not slow down the enlargement process and we are glad that the Government agree. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it would be most regrettable if candidate countries had to miss their target dates for accession because the European Union was not ready to receive them. The Government should press for the necessary changes to be made quickly.
I commend this report to your Lordships' House. It is not one of our most controversial but it deals with one of the most important issues; that is, the need to promote peace in Europe by speeding up the enlargement of the European Union. I beg to move.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, first, I join with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, in paying my tribute to the work of Sub-Committee A and in particular the chairmanship that it received from Lord Grenfell. I am sure that the whole House shares the regret of the noble Lord, Lord St John, that at the present time we do not have the benefit of Lord Grenfell in this House.
I can praise the work of the sub-committee without any element of self-congratulation because of my enforced absence from all but one of its hearings. I therefore feel at liberty to say that it produced an excellent report with sound analysis which has been excellently represented to the House today by the noble Lord, Lord St. John.
Enlargement is a wholly desirable process. One may argue that it is a wholly necessary process in the interests of peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. However, one must qualify that by saying, "but not at any price". Changes need to be put in place within the EU itself, especially concerning the institutional questions. Equally, changes need to be embraced by each applicant country wishing to accede to the Union. Those changes on both sides of the equation are essential preconditions, not merely to enlargement, but to a successful enlargement. For enlargement to happen in an institutionally unreformed European Union, or with the applicants being accepted without fully meeting the Copenhagen criteria, would be a recipe for potential disaster.
First, in relation to institutional reform, it is already clear that European Union decision making is proving increasingly difficult. Each enlargement, from the original six to the nine, to 10, to 12 and then to 15, brought in its wake greater problems. Decision making was exacerbated to such a degree that more and more relatively simple points are being stored up and referred to European councils for resolution. Each enlargement has meant more bureaucracy, more linguistic problems, more commissioners without real roles, more wielders of the veto, ever more members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors without fully meaningful roles. Decision making without institutional reform in a Union of 18 to 20 or possibly more is an unimaginable nightmare.
The intergovernmental conference processes start with the leftovers from Amsterdam, plus whatever else is agreed. We all know from the report of the former Belgian Prime Minister, Mr Dehaene and his two additional aides, the former German President, Mr Von Weizsäker, and my noble friend Lord Simon, that some ambitions for the IGC go infinitely further than those of the Amsterdam leftovers. Were that great agenda to be the agenda for the IGC, then the framework of time needed for decision making would itself be even greater. But as yet we have no timetable and no agenda; all we have is optimistic assertions of completion by the end of the year 2000 and equally optimistic assertions of full ratification of a new treaty in all member states within a year. There seems to be a

1197
surfeit of optimism and a lack of realism in some of those timetables based on the progress that is currently being made.
I turn to the other side of the equation—the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, referred to both sides—involving the ability of the applicants to meet the imperatives of the Copenhagen criteria. Clearly nothing should be allowed to dilute the imperative of the Copenhagen criteria. It is necessary to remind ourselves of the awesome burden those criteria contain: stability of institutions in each applicant country guaranteeing the rule of law; human rights; and respect for and the protection of minorities. There is an obligation to a functioning market economy with a capacity to cope with market forces and competitive pressures; and an ability to accept the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union. That is already set in the Copenhagen criteria as well as the adoption and application of the acquis communautaire which must not only entail formal transposition of European Union law into national law, but also be accompanied by the administrative and judicial capacity properly to implement and enforce such laws.
This is a monumental task made no easier by loose talk by some of enlargement being completed as early as 2002. We, the European Union, will have done well to complete our tasks by then. The applicants would need to have started the new millennium with miracles to fulfil their obligations. It is not enough to have the sort of incantations to which reference has been made; to talk of political imperative or give injunctions to take leaps of faith. Such phrases cannot be interpreted as either reasons or excuses for dilution of the Copenhagen criteria.
I turn to an aspect of the enlargement discussion which needs to be more fully addressed and for which at present both sides seem ill prepared. The fight against crime and racketeering and the need for a single market to protect properly its external frontiers is not at present receiving the attention that the problem deserves. A single market is only as strong as its external border is secure. The present European Union has enough problems with the abuse of the European transit system and with smuggling of goods and people.
Enlargement, to be a success—I do not want it merely to happen; I want it to be a success—needs the active support of our citizens, at least sufficiently to ensure ratification of the intergovernmental conference agreements in all member states. Our citizens will need assurances as regards the security of our borders from several perspectives: migration into the European Union; economic protection of the single market; and certainly concern for our common security and defence interests. The wider the enlargement, the less politically stable some of our new frontier neighbours appear to be. That needs to be addressed with greater urgency than anybody appears to be showing in the discussions at present.
1198
Enlargement needs to be pursued. Countries freed from totalitarian shackles have a right to see it as part of their destiny. For us it is a vital ingredient to peace, stability and prosperity in Europe. We in the EU must fulfil our duty to prepare, as must each of the applicant countries if they are to accede. Anything less would be to condemn the Union to constant gridlock in decision making in which new member states would neither be able to fulfil their obligations of membership, nor enjoy its benefits.
6 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on introducing this important debate, which, as he pointed out, is most timely in advance of this weekend's European Council summit in Helsinki. I should also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all noble Lords who served on the committee and who produced this comprehensive and insightful report. In particular, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, whose absence I hope is only temporary from your Lordships' House, on his work as chairman of the committee.
It has been said many times before, but it is none the less true for repetition: enlargement is the historic challenge of our generation. Tonight I intend to focus my remarks on the accession to the European Union by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. We have an opportunity before us to heal the divisions that have scarred our region, to ensure that the whole of Europe reaps the fruits of peace and to construct a durable framework for peace and prosperity, security and stability across the whole continent. Events in the Balkans, in Bosnia and in Kosovo have translated this duty into a political imperative to deliver enlargement, one which rests squarely on the shoulders of today's European leaders.
The committee's report raises a number of highly pertinent questions on the means by which that enlargement is being delivered. That is not to say that in the past two years, since the Commission published Agenda 2000, which suggested a policy framework for enlargement, important steps have not been taken. Much progress has been made on accession negotiations with the first wave of applicant states. By the end of the Finnish presidency, negotiations on two thirds of the chapters of community law will have been opened with them. But the ultimate decision on whether, and when, these applicants join the European Union depends not only on their readiness to enter, having surmounted all the economic, political and social hurdles demanded of them, but also, and equally importantly, on the readiness of the European Union to receive them, having put in place adequate funding and having completed all the necessary policy and institutional reforms.
These difficult issues must be addressed and difficult decisions taken as a result. It is critically important that the enlargement train is not derailed because of the failures of existing member states. While each of the candidate countries is making such heroic efforts

1199
to get ready for membership, we must show the same commitment to getting the European Union ready for enlargement. We cannot allow the situation to arise in which those countries, whose people have already made great sacrifices and efforts to meet our political anti economic criteria, decide to turn their backs on us and this historic opportunity slips through our fingers like sand, intangibly yet irredeemably.
The opportunity to agree these reforms was missed once before, two years ago at Amsterdam. We cannot afford to miss it again, or future generations will judge us harshly. Given that the Government put the failure of the Amsterdam Treaty to make the European Union's institutions appropriate to an enlarged Community down to the lack of political will among other member slates, but not the United Kingdom, and to deadlock in the Council of Ministers as a result of the "intransigence of other partners", what assurances can the Minister offer that the same intransigence will not prevent agreement being reached at next year's IGC?
That is particularly important given the concerns raised in the report that the,
"most likely outcome"—
of the IGC will be that the,
"pace of enlargement will he constrained by failure to agree on the detail of institutional reform",
which would be,
"seriously damaging to the confidence of the applicants".
In the light of these fears, does the Minister share the optimism of the, Minister of State that the European Union will indeed be ready by 2002, given that we heard such confidence and optimism from the Government before in 1997, only to have those hopes dashed?
In this context, I should like to say a few words about the Helsinki summit due to take place at the end of this week. The agenda for the IGC has yet to be agreed. This, together with agreement to the next major wave of enlargement, is what the summit will determine. This will be one of the most important items under discussion. It is welcome news indeed to hear that obtaining an agenda, which will keep the IGC focused on enlargement and enable it to be completed within a reasonable timeframe, will be one of the Government's strategic objectives for the summit.
However, the Minister will be aware that the Simon-Dehaene Report recommended a much broader agenda than that agreed at the Cologne European Council in June. I hope that the Minister will concur that any such attempts to broaden the agenda must be resisted. If past experience is anything to go by, these negotiations will prove protracted and difficult enough, without the added risk of a prolonged IGC, which may not be concluded by the end of the year 2000. Therefore, can the Minister give a guarantee that the Government will not allow the agenda to slip beyond the one set at Cologne in June?
The Government have not yet set out a comprehensive negotiating position for the IGC, but rather than press the Minister, again, for answers today on that subject, I should like an assurance from her that the White Paper the Government intend to issue in
1200
advance of the IGC will set out this position. Suffice it to say, I should like to ask the Minister for an assurance that this country will retain its right to nominate two Commissioners, unless and until a satisfactory agreement on reforms to the voting system within the Council is reached, which both increases Britain's voting strength in the Council and which fairly reflects the difference in population between member states.
One of the aspects of the report that particularly struck me was the sense from the evidence of the Governments of Hungary and Poland in particular that they were isolated from the present running of the European Union. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to press for observer status for the applicant countries at the IGC, in accordance with the report's recommendation?
I should now like to turn to the issue of timetabling, which the report examines in some detail. This is particularly apposite in the light of the Commission proposals to open accession negotiations with the remaining central and eastern European applicants. As the report states, these proposals recognise the strong political imperative to accelerate enlargement. That is a welcome acknowledgement. We share the Government's desire to see invitations to start negotiations issued to Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia at Helsinki this weekend. It was also very heartening to read of the strong support among the first wave applicants for the inclusion of other applicants in the negotiations.
Our experiences in Bosnia, and now Kosovo, have taught us the bitter lesson that the continent of Europe cannot be whole and free as long as its south-east corner is wracked by ethnic tensions and threatened with conflict. To Bulgaria and Romania, applicant countries which border this long-troubled region and which have suffered as a result, we owe a particular obligation to ensure that EU enlargement brings peace, prosperity and stability. I hope that the Minister will agree that this obligation includes the critical need to secure the conditions for the unblocking of the Danube, which continues to be the cause of so much economic hardship in these countries.
Yet the proposals to open negotiations with the remaining applicant countries highlight the dangers of setting a timetable for accession. If expectations in these countries are not met and negotiations do not proceed as fast as they would like, the twin phantoms of disappointment and false hope are likely to haunt the enlargement project and bedevil it to the point of collapse. In view of the statements made by the President of the Commission, which have varied from suggestions of setting "a firm date" for the accession of those countries best prepared, to the recent recommendation of a
"target date for the closure of each chapter of negotiations",
the question of a timetable needs to be clarified.
However, the committee has concluded that the target dates for accession mentioned by both the Commission and the first wave applicant states are, as we have heard, over-optimistic, and may not fully reflect the difficult work which still lies ahead. To what extent does the Minister share this view?

1201
The report spends some time considering the matter of transition periods. The question of whether applicants should be allowed to join before they have not only adopted but also implemented the acquis communautaire in its entirety is absolutely fundamental; and the answer is surely dependent on the level of political will among existing member states to accelerate enlargement. For whatever agreement is reached on transition periods will critically affect the realism of target dates and will set a precedent for negotiations with the remaining applicants.
Does the Minister agree with the committee's conclusion that it seems clear from the evidence it received that,
"without adequate transition periods very few applicants could accede soon and some would be unable to do so at any time in the foreseeable future"?
In the light of the concern expressed in the report at the perceived,
"hardening in the Government's attitude to transition periods"
which, as it points out, is incompatible with support and enthusiasm for enlargement, what assurances can the Minister give that the Government will maintain a realistic and balanced approach to transition periods and does she agree that it is simply not sensible to pretend that no transition periods will be needed?
The Government have prided themselves on leading the debate on enlargement and have described themselves as a champion of European Union enlargement. But the Government have already once allowed a difficult decision to be postponed, and put off for tomorrow what they should have done today. However, the forthcoming IGC offers a second chance to put that right. We, from our Benches, will offer the Government every support in securing an agenda for a focused, practical IGC which takes us one important step closer to the milestone of the realisation of this most symbolic and important of enlargements.
I end by offering an apology that due to a pressing previous engagement I may not be present for the Minister's speech. If that proves to be the case, I know that both the Minister and my noble friend will wind up ably and cogently.
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on the excellent way in which he presented the report. I underline his regret that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who has been a marvellous chairman of Sub-Committee A, on which I had the great pleasure to serve for a while, is not able to be present this evening. I share the view that the sooner the noble Lord returns to this House, the better informed will be our debates on Europe. I believe that in many ways the European scrutiny committees are among the best jewels of this House. This report is another example of the high standard of their contribution to debate on the future of the European Union.
1202
I turn first to the Helsinki agenda. It is clear that the Government have committed themselves to enlargement as their first priority and have recognised that the inescapable consequence of enlargement—as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said—is the success of the intergovernmental conference on the necessary reform of the existing institutions. Bluntly, one cannot have enlargement without reform of the institutions and it is no good our pretending otherwise.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it is important also not to lose sight of the fact that enlargement is a major aspiration to complete the reuniting of a deeply divided and troubled continent and to make it peaceful and prosperous. We should never lose sight of that ambition. It is easy to become bogged down in the many complexities of economic integration and legal difficulties. We should not forget what we are trying to do because, as the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Moynihan, said, it is an ambition for a generation. It is one that we should be proud of because, if we are able to achieve this ambition, there will never be another iron curtain dividing the Continent of Europe.
However, it is crucial to add that there is something troubling about the way in which the enlargement negotiations have taken place. The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, pointed out—and we all know this— that taking on board virtually the whole of the acquis is extraordinarily difficult for countries that have emerged from years of communist control only in the past decade. It is worth underlining—as the evidence of the witnesses so clearly did—the colossal price we are asking these countries to accept. I give just one example; namely, the probability that up to 40,000 Poles will lose their jobs in a country where unemployment is already much higher than here if the requirement that the steel mills should no longer be subsidised and should be sold off is insisted upon. It may have to be insisted upon, but there must be some understanding of the political fragility that still applies in central and eastern Europe. There must also therefore be some recognition that the transitional period for some of these countries may have to be fairly lengthy, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said.
I have one other worry about the negotiations which is mentioned in paragraph 154 of the committee's excellent report; namely, that there is not enough dialogue in the negotiations. It is almost as if the acquis is laid down with little discussion of how it might best be handled. That is why I strongly support the radical proposal in the report of Sub-Committee A; namely, that there should be observers at the intergovernmental conference when it takes place at the end of next year. It is simply absurd to exclude from that conference even observers from the countries which are so soon to join the body, for the institutional reforms we embark upon are bound up inescapably with the process of enlargement and how it can be made successful. I do not understand why not listening to those who can explain the difficulties they face will somehow enhance the process of institutional change. We strongly support the provisions of

1203
paragraph 154, but we also hope that the dialogue may be conducted in a slightly more understanding way. Reading between the lines of the evidence given by the witnesses, there are clear indications of a certain amount of, as it were, "We are speaking and you will listen but there will not be too much listening the other way".
As has been pointed out, the enlargement process requires those of us who are member states of the European Union to understand the depth of the changes that we have to make. We have to change the size of the Commission. We have to change qualified majority voting. We have to recognise the necessity for there to be an opening up of the Council of Ministers, for otherwise all our talk of openness and the Copenhagen principles will be seen as not applying to ourselves. We must also recognise that the incredible complexity of the European Union treaties as they have developed has now become the enemy of the democratic accountability and true public involvement that many of us badly want to see.
We cannot escape facing up to these complexities, only part of winch comprises the common agricultural policy. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will be able to say something in her reply about this morning's rather surprising news that the Prime Minister intends to apply the common agricultural policy to enhance tourism and the environment in this country. Both of those are excellent objectives. She may be able to tell us whether it is a unilateral or collective approach to the common agricultural policy. That is very important for the countries we are talking about today.
I raise one question with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who has once again given an extremely thorough and conscientious speech on which I congratulate hire. I believe that he is in some difficulty. The leader of the Conservative Party in another place has consistently indicated his opposition to an extension of qualified majority voting. I say to the party of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that one cannot embark on the, institutional changes needed for enlargement, which he rightly recognises as an important and overriding goal, without recognising that his party will find it difficult to accept some of those institutional changes. The way to produce a greater voice for nation states within the process of negotiation and enlargement is to enhance the position of national parliaments in a way which is now being undertaken as regards the proposed charter of human rights rather than trying to set up essentially inescapably shallow and short-lived defences of national sovereignty, for example, by proposing more and more opt-outs which will eventually make the European Union so complex it will no longer work at all.
I wish to address two other points before I conclude. The first concerns the important issue of the relationship with Turkey. I believe that it would be a very good thing for Turkey eventually to join the European Union. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said about Copenhagen and, even more strongly, about the Luxembourg conditions laid down in the paper called A European Strategy for Turkey.
1204
They are very rigorous indeed. We need to try to help Turkey to recognise that some of her problems are perhaps cultural rather than national and at least to see the problem with the Kurds, for example, as having something in common with the linguistic and cultural demands of the people of Wales, where a solution has been found which provides extensive cultural autonomy without compelling the Welsh to abandon either their language or their culture in a manner which they would have found it impossible to carry out. I believe that there are ways in which Turkey can be brought within the ambit of the influence of the European Union and assisted to reach the point where one day she might become a full member. We need to be as helpful and sympathetic as we can. I would like to see as part of the European Union a country with a very great Islamic culture which has contributed hugely to the development of Europe.
Finally, I refer to the countries along the border. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will have more to say about that. I declare an interest as president of the Britain-Russia Centre. Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union are feeling increasingly isolated from the mainstream of European policy. As regards Russia. I believe that the outrageous behaviour in Chechnya is not unrelated to a strong sense in Russia of being encircled, being at risk and being under-consulted in the recent developments which have affected her so far from the expansion of NATO to the agreement to establish a pipeline that specifically excludes Russia from its path.
I conclude with this. It is crucial that those of us who support the development of the European Union and its enlargement recognise the need to begin to establish economic and defence structures which will include Russia in the outer concentric circle of our concerns, including Ukraine, Georgia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union. I plead that because Madeleine Albright has suggested a fairly rapid extension of the European Union to the Ukraine. That does not make sense at this stage. It tells us that we should embark on a long transitional period of association with these countries in order to establish a Europe which goes beyond the continent itself to include its neighbours in new policies that establish and recognise their interests. If we do not do that we might find ourselves establishing a new border in Europe even less porous than the one that has fallen.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on presenting the Select Committee report and the members of that committee for all the work they put into it. I also echo the sadness that is felt because of the absence of Lord Grenfell, a man vastly experienced in international affairs. I look forward happily to his return to this Chamber.
I take as my starting point, out of deference to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, remarks that he made. For a long while he sought to gentrify

1205
my views on Europe. It was particularly pleasing to see that he said at page 37:
"We are all in favour of enlargement in general terms but when it comes to the principles of how do you create a European Union Commission. Council, Parliament that is actually going to work with 26 members we do not really see an end result that is either acceptable to us individually or acceptable to the members generally".
I thought that that showed an almost delicate conversion to scepticism, but I cannot travel quite that hopefully.
I offer your Lordships four thoughts on the nature of the present relationship and why they should make us ultra cautious. I am very modest in my choice of terms. First, I do not believe that we should have any illusion about the thrust for enlargement whether it comes from the imperial spirit of the new Europe or from the anxiety of the border states which look to the East and feel uneasy.
One thing is sure: for all the arguments, Turkey will be a very strong member for enlarged membership. The other Balkan states like Croatia and the rest will be mopped up. I find it fascinating that Armenia wishes to join the European Union. We shall find there is no cordon sanitaire between Russia and the enlarged Europe which will take its frontiers alongside Russia. In that context, I very much agree with what was argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
The second point concerns the core structure of Europe and what we have got used to. Whether we have enjoyed it or not, what we have got used to is a highly developed liberal market economy centred around the single market with all the state intervention required to make that effective. That is under the overriding bridge of strict monetary discipline which will be embodied in the ecu.
Do we suppose that that structure will survive the experience of enlargement? I believe that that is highly unlikely. I do not believe that the structure is going to survive in today's European Union. We have gone through a phase in which liberal economics have been high fashion and I have been delighted to ride that particular fashion. But there is now a growing concern about distributive economics, the Social Chapter and the social obligations of business in a way which would not have been true a few years ago. Of course, they will extend to environmental matters and the issues so graphically addressed at the abortive meeting in Seattle.
It is not Oskar Lafontaine one should regard with any degree of apprehension concerning the tensions within the European Union; it is the fact that there is a revival of communism in Poland and Hungary, a revival of a situation where the state is expected to resume much of its traditional role; namely, to provide protection against the consequences of economic change, which is the hallmark of economic liberalism. For that reason, I say to the House, "Watch this space". Do not suppose that enlargement will help to reconcile these tensions and difficulties. I suspect that just the reverse will happen.
1206
I shall dwell for a moment on the actual size of the proposed expansion. Of course, in the past the European Union has expanded on a number of occasions, but this proposal stands alone in numerical terms for a prospective expansion. The expansion will bring in between 60 million and 65 million people in the first wave, which is now underway; 40 million in the second wave which, it has been indicated, will not be far behind the first wave; and finally, in Turkey itself, 60 million. In aggregate terms, that amounts to about 40 per cent of the existing European Union. Do not suppose that those numbers can be absorbed merely by extending the transitional period. Indeed, the transitional arrangements monumentally underplay the significance of the challenges we now face.
Finally, the difficulties are exacerbated by the difference in living standards. In Appendix 4 of the Select Committee's report, it is shown that, expressed as a percentage of average EU living standards, the Czech Republic has the highest percentage at 60 per cent, then Hungary has 49 per cent and Poland has 39 per cent. I have chosen the three most significant economies. It is staggering to believe that it will be possible to take into Europe's political, economic and social Community nations with such disparate living standards as have been presented. When I examine the detailed figures, I believe that this will be a massive challenge—probably as big a challenge as any free society has had to encompass.
Of course, there are times when such decisions are made, normally under the threat of external pressure—the threat of war. We do not have that threat now. The quite extraordinary and very welcome situation is that peace has now held sway in Europe for generations. There are no external pressures that require these changes. So I look to see where is the crusading spirit to enable the enlargement to be a success.
I shall quote again from the report of the Select Committee. When taking a test of opinion about enlargement, the committee found that the average level of support for the applicant states joining was 42 per cent. In the United Kingdom, support was 40 per cent; but others showed significantly lower support: Germany, 38 per cent; and France, 33 per cent. I thought that we were the reluctant Europeans. Now we have a situation where Germany and France are polling less enthusiasm than are we. I do not have to spell out the argument: those countries have assessed the economics of the situation. They have considered who will be signing the cheques. Those countries are making decisions not on a grand view of pan-European peace but on money. That is not a basis for the kind of sacrifices that must be envisaged by enlargement.
Of course, I wish the Minister and her department well in the negotiations. But I hope that they will not travel too full of hope and that there will not be too much facile optimism in the Foreign Office. At some stage, someone will dust down the print of William Pitt after Austerlitz saying, "Roll up that map" of Europe, because we are at a sea-change in our relationships. We are seeing a future which, despite a veneer of comparability, will be wholly unlike the past. The fear

1207
should be that the future will not only itself be abortive, but that it will undermine what success has been achieved in the past.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, in debates on European questions because he speaks with great knowledge and authority, and with a realism that is so lacking in many other contributions to European debates.
In the broadest sense, what are we being asked to agree to in this report? In its conclusions it contains three propositions. First, the report concludes that enlargement is a good and excellent thing and that we should go for it. Secondly, as I understand it, the report suggests that it will be very difficult to achieve. Yes, it will be, and that fact has not yet been spelt out anything like sufficiently, and that is why I am so pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Biffen. Thirdly, it states that this group of, on the whole, pro-Europeans and pro-integrationists, has been driven to the conclusion that, at least for a time, it will be necessary to have a two-tier Europe, if there is to be any enlargement at all.
That in itself is a good starting point as regards realism. I should now like to address what I believe are the major problems that must be overcome. Some have already been touched upon and I am very glad that that has been done. The first, of course, is the burden being imposed upon the applicant states. My old friend the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was quite right to refer to the acquis. I believe that the phrase, "ball and chain" was used. Clamp the acquis, in all its magnificence, on to the applicant states and it will be a surprise indeed if they can move forward a single pace. Added to that, we have seen the incredibly bold claims for the Copenhagen criteria, as listed by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson. We should consider those against the background and history of the countries of eastern and central Europe, and in particular the history of the past 50 to 60 years in those regions.
In a previous debate on enlargement in December 1997, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, reminded us that it would take the Poles 10 years of expenditure of up t o 3 per cent of their GDP simply to conform to the environmental, health and safety standards of the European Union. That burden is enormous and anyone who imagines that it can be imposed in any way other than Dyer a very substantial period of time is frankly deluding himself.
I have found that in most of the reports on this matter there is a lack of intellectual rigour and no attempt to go to the heart of the matter. "Fudge" was the right word—indeed, I thought it was very kind—that was used to describe the Government's response to the report. I believe their response was far worse than that. It was a flight from reality. When one rehearses with the existing members of the EU what those countries really have to do in order to make enlargement possible, it is immediately obvious just how formidable and in some ways remote is the objective.
1208
What are those major problems? The principal one is the CAP and I am surprised that it has not been mentioned more frequently in the debate so far. I am not referring to the almost illusory CAP of Agenda 2000 as presented by the Commission and debated in this House two years ago, but to the CAP after President Chirac had had his fling at the Berlin summit when that document was further weakened by his massive amendments. The idea that we can go ahead with the CAP post-Chirac, post-Berlin and pay for it is nonsense. What do we then find? The Government propose that the most expensive part of the CAP should not be offered to the applicant states. They are to be exempted from the guarantee section. How they will then negotiate with the applicant states the other parts of the CAP, I do not know. Will they really subsidise the export of Community food to Poland and these other countries while they refuse to pay them the level that they are paying its own farmers to put food into intervention? That is nonsense and everyone knows it.
The problem is not only the CAP; it goes much beyond that. Agenda 2000 was also dependent on a GDP growth rate in the European Union of 2.5 per cent per year over the whole period 2000–06. To put it mildly, that looks a very unlikely target to be attained. I have looked at the performance in the past few years of the main states of the European Union. The score goes something like this. In the past six years the French have managed three out of six years over and at 2.5 per cent; the Germans have managed two years out of six at 2.5 per cent growth; the Italians have managed one year out of the six; and the UK has managed about three as well. That does not really suggest that the 2.5 per cent growth rate is likely to be achieved. When you add to that the implications of economic and monetary union and the whole attempt to reduce either the debt/GDP ratio in the case of Italy, and the constraints imposed on Italy to do that, or the 3 per cent GDP borrowing requirement on others, you know perfectly well that deflationary factors will operate in a way that makes that 2.5 per cent growth rate almost impossible. That is the second of the hurdles that will have to be overcome.
However, that is not the end of the story. Part of the story is that there is not exactly great enthusiasm among the other member states, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Biffen. No, there is not, because, as he rightly said, they will lose something. I f there is genuine reform of the CAP, we know who will be the losers. If there is going to be, as there will have to be, a switch of resources from the "poor four", which are doing jolly well, to a new "poor four", which will undoubtedly be there as soon as the applicant states arrive, it is not an attractive proposition for Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal to lose the massive subsidies that they have been receiving because they claim to be the "poor four". A good many vested interests will have to be overcome before we can take it for granted that there is a strong will among the governments, let alone the peoples, of the other countries of the European Union for enlargement.

1209
Finally, there is the IGC and institutional change. My goodness, I have read, as have other noble Lords, the report of the "three wise men", whom Prodi sponsored. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Simon, is not present because it was a report that probably emboldened Signor Prodi to make the kind of remarks he has made—that it is essential to have qualified majority voting over a vast area and that it should be the absolute rule in the new expanded European Union; and also his remarks about how necessary it is to abolish the veto and the unanimity rule for taxation. Anyone who imagines that that IGC will not be faced by a whole mass of demands from Germany and other countries which want British tax policy to be changed and absorbed into the policies of the European Union is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
I come to the point. Of course it will be very difficult. We have to face that. The only sensible way out for us is to say that there really has to be flexibility if we are to enlarge—and we want to enlarge—and if we want to underpin the democracies of eastern and central Europe. They are poor countries; they do need help; and they need the help that they can get by opening up the European Union in trade terms—in agriculture and other areas—so that they get capital investment as well. They will not be able to live up to those criteria, and not just within a reasonable period of time. They will have to have a long transition period. But for many of them it is absurd to imagine that they will become part of that integrated Europe which is the Franco-German dream. It will not be Charlemagne's Europe again if you add the first six countries, then add the next six, including Romania and Bulgaria, and the further six of what was once the Soviet Union—the union of soviet republics.
Where does Europe end? The sensible thing now is really to develop those clauses in the Amsterdam treaty which allowed for separate development, to let those who want to go ahead to a tight Union to be free to do so, as the treaty allows, and for the rest of us, particularly the applicant states, to form a separate ring of states which do not share that aim and goal of complete union but wish, on the contrary, to stay self-governing but co-operating in all the areas that really matter for the future of Europe and its prosperity.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for initiating this debate on our report—I was a member of the committee which put together the report; to our chairman Lord Grenfell; to our Clerk, Dr Hopkins, who was of enormous assistance to us; and to our specialist adviser, Jackie Gower.
As other noble Lords have made clear, the report is timely. When we first set to work on the report we had in mind the Helsinki meeting in December. We had not expected Prodi's statement to the European Parliament on 13th October, but in many ways it was Prodi's statement that set the agenda for our discussions. In his speech to the European Parliament on 13th October, Prodi made two things clear. First, he said that the
1210
negotiations with the six applicant states that were already under way—with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Slovenia and Cyprus—should proceed as quickly as possible and that there was no question of allowing the timetable to slip to 2005 or beyond, although at that time, in the summer, there had been discussions about the possibility of the timetable slipping. No, Prodi made it quite clear that it was not going to slip.
Secondly, Prodi said that proposals would be put to the Helsinki summit to open negotiations with the remaining six aspiring applicants—Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta—and that discussions would be opened with Turkey. What was new was the acceptance by the Commission of what is called the "regatta principle": that although the start of the negotiations might be the same for each group of countries, the negotiations would then proceed at their own pace; and each country could enter into its own particular negotiations and wait until those were satisfactorily completed rather than having to wait around for a whole batch of countries to complete their negotiations before they proceeded.
It is also clear, as has been pointed out frequently during the debate, that the Commission is prepared to be somewhat more flexible than previously in allowing transition arrangements for aspiring countries. The key criteria—the Copenhagen political criteria—remain; namely, that for the start of negotiations there should be stable institutions guaranteeing democracy and the rule of law, respect for human rights, and protection of minority rights. Although no one suggested during the negotiations that the acquis communautaire should be in any sense modified, it was suggested that allowance should possibly be made for longer transition periods than had previously been accepted. That was an important change of stance on the part of the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Biffen, was right to refer to a sea change in relationships. Events in Kosovo were the trigger for the change in stance on the part of the Commission. That was made clear in Prodi's announcement that, if the hard line were pursued, the countries that had made such hard efforts and sacrifices would become disillusioned. Mr van der Pas, director general in charge of enlargement, also made it clear that the situation in the Balkans and the very real sacrifices made by Romania and Bulgaria in that war, and the continuing blockage of the Danube, made it necessary for a "big political gesture" to be made at Helsinki. Although no state would be allowed to begin negotiations until it had met the Copenhagen political criteria, he admitted that, down the line, when it came to the time for accession sometimes a "leap of faith" would have to be made.
As my noble friend Lady Williams has made clear, we on these Benches were delighted with the new initiative from Prodi. It is vital both that those countries that are more advanced in negotiations and those with which negotiations are yet to start should be made to feel welcome. That was brought home to me last summer when I visited Hungary. I went there to talk about the development of that country's science

1211
and technology system. It was my third visit; I had been there in 1991, and again in 1995. On my two earlier visits, I had on the whole been met with gloom and doom. The Hungarians had had to dismantle their huge academies of science, which housed thousands and thousands of people. They had been the source of scientific research, but had been totally isolated from the universities and factories. On the applied side, there were sect oral institutes of research, which fed through the applied technology but were not linked in any way with the factories. Those from the science and technology community whom I visited said to me, "Oh dear, all our scientists are being dismissed. We are doing no research and development now. We shall never be able to put together the capabilities that we had".
What was so encouraging about my visit during the past year was that, not only was one seeing in the universities the growth of the research base, side by side with graduate and undergraduate teaching, which provides a vibrant research base, but on top of that, large companies, many of them multinationals, were setting up new research laboratories and employing those scientists and engineers who had been dismissed earlier. Perhaps even more significant was that many new small companies were arising in the interstices of the economy, many of them created by those same scientists and engineers. They were indigenous companies, giving back to Hungary what it had had in many senses in the pre-war period; namely, a great vibrancy in its scientific and research community. It is moving back, and will quickly be a major force in our European scientific and technological capabilities.
So I found an extremely interesting and, on the whole, optimistic scenario. The Hungarians are among those who are most ready to join the new Community. I found it fascinating talking to them about, for example, the range of incentives that they might offer in terms of attempting to establish new firms. They were conscious of the limitations imposed by the Community's state aid regulations. "No, we can't do that", they were saying, "because we are not allowed to by the Community". In that sense, those who have described the acquis as something of a burden are perhaps correct. But it also provides them with a wall against the soft options that were always there under Communism. It is extremely important that they have that wall.
However, we should not forget the remark of the Polish Secretary of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. He said that it is,
"the people [who] are making the changes"
That is very much what I felt during my visit to Hungary. Equally, we must recognise that they share our vision of establishing a successful liberal democracy; and that the benefits are not all one way. The market potential in those countries as they move rapidly towards Western standards of living is substantial. The Polish Government said that,
"Enlargement is riot an act of charity—it is in the self-interest of existing members too".
1212
We should remember that. Perhaps I may quote my colleague, Alan Mayhew, who is at the University of Sussex. In his evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on European Affairs, he said, that the EU is
"approaching enlargement in a colonial spirit".
Perhaps it is trying to hard to squeeze applicants into a "perfect west European mould".
The question that arises, and has been given a great deal of prominence by the two previous speakers, is whether the West is prepared to make equivalent changes to those that we are seeing in those countries to accommodate enlargement. There are two crucial issues. The first arises in regard to agriculture; namely, the abject failure of part of the European Union to grasp the opportunity of the Berlin Summit last spring to set in train the necessary reforms to the CAP. Now we see what has happened at the WTO. Last week's fiasco in Seattle leaves the timetable for the millennium round very much in question. Some of the new entrants are ready to join, but are we ready to absorb them? Poland has been offered a shoddy compromise in terms of entry to the CAP. It has not been allowed the full benefits of the guarantee system. How can we possibly contemplate taking in Bulgaria or Romania without sorting out that issue?
Then there is the IGC. As Keith Vaz made clear to us when he came to see us, the Foreign Office wants the IGC to be "short" and "focused". It does not wish to open the full agenda raised by the "three wise men" in their report. It can be short and focused; however, we should be aware that the issues are still substantial: reconstitution of the Commission; discussion of qualified majority voting, with redistribution of votes on the Council; and the whole issue of openness in the Council. Then there is the need to negotiate any package through the European Parliament. These are extraordinarily tricky issues and it is difficult to be confident that we shall be able to handle them in time. I believe that the Foreign Office was extraordinarily complacent to say in its reply that it would,
"work together with other member states to ensure that sufficient institutional reform takes place to make early enlargement a reality".
We end our report with a section entitled "Difficult choices". We should not kid ourselves that enlargement is in any way a one-way street in which all the difficult choices must be made by the applicant countries. We ourselves have difficult choices to make and, like the applicant countries, we need to face up to those choices now rather than procrastinate, as we have been inclined to do, and leave them for another day. As we make clear in the report, we believe that the long-term benefits of peace and stability and the prosperity of a reunited Europe are substantial and well worth the short-term sacrifices, but we shall not see them if we shirk these difficult choices.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, this is a very good report except for one matter to which I shall turn in a moment. The successful enlargement of the European

1213
Union to comprise virtually all the countries between the Atlantic and the borders of the former Soviet Union would be the greatest achievement of the 21st century. I find myself in a somewhat difficult position following almost immediately the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, and my noble friend Lord Biffen. If at some point I appear to agree with them it is simply that I concur with the diagnosis but my view as to what should be done about it is entirely different, and to that I shall turn in a moment.
If we look at the present situation that we face, the movement towards European integration is essentially politically motivated and driven. Unfortunately, it tends to put on one side what I regard as perhaps the most important issue of all: money. Money may not be the root of all evil (if I may be forgiven for slightly misquoting St. Paul) but it plays a vital part in almost every decision that is taken by governments, or at governmental level. One has only to listen to the debates that take place in this House and down the corridor. Time and again one hears, "Have we got the money? Are we prepared to spend it? Will we spend it on this or that? Should we or somebody else spend it?" If one goes to Europe it is far worse because there people spend money without the direct discipline of having themselves to raise what they are to spend.
Having said that by way of introduction, the great difference between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, and my noble friend Lord Biffen is that they identify the problems and say that they stop us doing it, whereas I say that they are problems to be solved. I was sent to Brussels. I say "sent" deliberately because I never asked to go, and I was not at all certain that I wanted to go. I was told by my wife that I had to go and therefore I went. That was much more important than any views that might have been held by the then Prime Minister who I shall not name. My remit was to mastermind the single market programme, and as to that I took a fundamentally different view. For 30 years—not 30 days—people had looked at the problem and said that it was too difficult. It was all written in the Treaty of Rome and no one of my generation had invented it.
I know that I shall be unpopular when I say that in four years the Commission under the leadership of Jacques Delors, with me in direct charge of the programme, made immense strides to establish the single market in Europe. Having played a part in it, that is the one thing for which my own party will occasionally give me at least a margin of credit. That is the approach that we must take to enlargement.
There is no question that it is immensely difficult. In a way it is a tragedy that the financial aspect has been pushed into the background. Let us for a moment look at that. Throughout the whole life of the Union, as it now is, going right back to its original foundation under the Treaty of Paris of 1952, only four really poor countries have been brought into membership: Ireland (which came in with us), Greece, Spain and Portugal. In the next five to 10 years there was talk of a first wave of six. On Friday and Saturday of this week in Helsinki
1214
the six have suddenly become 12. People suggest that Turkey should be added to the list of applicant countries.
On page 40 of the report one sees figures that show the income per head of each of the applicant countries compared with the European Union as a whole. It is a pity that the average for the applicants is not shown in the report. The average for all the applicant countries other than Turkey is 39 per cent of the European average. If one brings in Turkey that is reduced to 34 per cent. Bear in mind that the original aspiration when the regional funds, social funds and later the structural funds (as they are now called) were brought into play was to bring the poorer member states— incidentally, right at the beginning the poorest member state was Italy followed subsequently by the four who came in—up to 90 per cent of the European average. To contemplate bringing these applicant countries up to 90 per cent is a task of enormous magnitude.
That is the real issue which must be faced. There are questions about the institutions, the power of the European Parliament and the number of commissioners. Incidentally, it was Mrs Thatcher who proposed to cut the number of commissioners per large member state from two to one, but I shall not embarrass anybody by quoting what happened. It is much better to rely on imagination when one comes to difficult issues.
All of these were important matters that had not simply been left over from Amsterdam. What was left over from Amsterdam was what had been left over from Maastricht, and in turn what was left over from Maastricht had been left over from the conferences that took place before Maastricht. Therefore, there is a long and well-established tradition of leaving matters if one does not want to face them.
I do not deny that these are very important issues which must be dealt with. But the overriding task is to reconcile what the existing member states of the European Union are prepared to offer with what the applicant countries believe that they shall receive. At present there is a great chasm between the two, compared with which the Grand Canyon in the United States is little more than a minor crack in the ground. To be absolutely honest, the only people who can face that are the heads of government themselves, and they must also knock their heads together. People say that all of this was dealt with in Agenda 2000. But, quite rightly, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, said—I do not disagree with his analysis but with what he wants to do about it; he wants to lie down, I want to stand up; that is the only minor difference between us—if one looks at Agenda 2000, they have come along and said that they have reformed the CAP. I have known the CAP for a very long time; every time they reform it the cost goes up—and it will go up again this time.
Look at what has happened? The fairly modest proposals put forward by the Commission were promptly whittled down by the farmers' lobby, commonly referred to, more politely, as the Agricultural Ministers Council. What the Agricultural

1215
Ministers Council agreed was then whittled down by the Berlin summit. The report itself specifically draws attention to that, and I am glad that it does. The same is true of the structural funds. Not enough of significance has been done.
But these are problems which have got to be identified; which have got to be brought out into the open; and which have got to be solved. I think—I hope I am not quoted in the countries concerned—that it is a grave error of judgment to bring in the second six before the first six are on the point of being launched.
One of the other tragedies—this is history, I know—is that we have almost got rid of what was originally intended as the stepping stone to Community or Union membership; namely, the European Economic Area. But it is no good going back over such matters.
There has to be a proper phasing out of these countries. The one good thing that Romano Prodi has said is that, while he wants to get the second wave into negotiations, there will be no question of them all coming in together. When they come in it will have to be when they are right to come in and when they are capable of coming in.
We now face —not only in this country but in the European Union as a whole—a challenge of enormous dimensions. This country has risen to challenges before and I sincerely hope that this is one to which it will also rise.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, the author of the publication on the single European market, itself the abiding and defining motor and theme of the European Union.
In commending the 21st Report of your Lordships' Select Committee on European Union enlargement, and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on its production, I take the opportunity to enlarge on the benefits of the European Union. After all, why is it that independent countries throughout Europe clamour to join? Except for dissident voices here in the UK, no country wants to leave the European Union. This is a party to which everyone wants to bring a bottle, save those in our own country—some of whom have lost the bottle to fight for an open, democratic and prosperous Europe built on the principle of free and fair trade.
It is important to reiterate the benefits of access to the world's biggest market; of the admission to a forum of democratic legitimacy; of the strengthening of human rights; and, the most attractive prize of all, of the maintenance of peace within the European Union's borders in our own continent.
Some commentators forget that 30 years ago countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece laboured under debilitating dictatorships. Nowadays these countries treasure their freedom within the European Union. We should celebrate that fact and the role that the EU played in bringing them in from the cold. The transitional arrangements conferred on the cohesion
1216
fund member states should encourage us to repeat such transitional arrangements with these new EU candidates.
We need look no further than our own British Isles to celebrate the renaissance of Ireland, a success story in part attributable to its beneficial membership of the European Union. Indeed, the European Union has played a significant role—largely overlooked by our domestic media—in preparing the path to peace in Northern Ireland.
So much for the present. What of the future for EU enlargement? First of all, institutional reform. Next year's IGC will return to unfinished business from Amsterdam. Perhaps solutions will be found to teasers such as how many commissioners each member state can have and balancing qualified majority voting against unanimity and the veto. But one issue neglected since the days of John Major is the democratisation of the European Union, and, in particular, the agreement that national parliaments, in conjunction with the European Parliament, should beef up their scrutiny role of the executive, whether national government or the Commission, to the benefit of the European citizen. Your Lordship's House is already pre-eminent in its oversight of European Union legislation. My hope is that that role can be strengthened and dilated, including reinforced dialogue with the European Parliament, especially now that your Lordships' House is itself in the throes of reform. Imperative in all of this is the necessity of ensuring respect for respective parliaments and of not being seduced into believing that our democratic institutions should be rivals. Perhaps that suggestion could be looked at by an appropriate committee of your Lordships' House.
Secondly, I take the opportunity to welcome the change of approach—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and others—indicated by the Commission in absorbing the current applicant countries. The previous segregating of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia—the favourite five-a-side team to beat Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and the Slovak Republic—always seemed to me demeaning. Cyprus as plus one and Malta as plus two made us all reach for our plus fours in trying to understand the bunkers laid in the path of applicant countries driving their way round the golf course of qualification for EU membership. The Commission is to be supported in changing course and dealing with each applicant country separately and at its own speed and maturity. Surely, ripeness is all.
One further plea: it is all too easy to think of these applicants as supplicants; to regard EU states as the professionals in the club house and the candidate countries as novices with overwhelming handicaps still out on the course. Our dialogue with such countries should be two-way; we each can learn from the other. The President of the EBRD, Horst Köhler, recently and rightly suggested that candidate countries have a lot to offer. The transition process has fostered a culture of creativity and entrepreneurship that the European Union would do well to embrace.

1217
Finally, there is one country left off the invitation list and mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby; that is, Turkey. It is, of course, the case that its human rights record, its treatment of the Kurds and the instability of its democratic process present difficulties in adding it to the candidate list. Its quarrel with Greece over Cyprus and its huge agricultural sector represent further impediments to early entry.
Nevertheless—I repeat views I held before the recent tragic earthquakes in Turkey—I wonder whether other noble Lords believe, with me, that Turkey has been hard done by. Turkey is, after all, part of the land mass of the continent of Europe. Its different religious and cultural traditions could be seen as broadening Europe's profile, not diminishing it. Its stalwart membership of NATO and its recent rapprochement with Greece should also count to its credit. I hope that the Government can develop further the overtures made to Turkey at the time of the 1997 British presidency.
Europe should never be afraid of diversity, cultural or otherwise. Indeed, it is a strength and, arguably, the characteristic which sets Europe apart from other global regional areas. We should celebrate that diversity and give it practical expression in the burgeoning process of European enlargement.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on introducing the debate so clearly and effectively. As a member of the committee, I also pay tribute to the chairmanship of Lord Grenfell—he is missed very much in this House; I hope not for long—and to the Clerk of the committee and the special adviser who were so helpful in preparing the report in a very short time.
I support enlargement provided—they are large provisos—that it is done at a rational pace and cost and can be brought into effect without being unfair to the other members of the European Union. Subject to that, I share a large number of the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Biffen, and the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney. Like my noble friend Lord Cockfield, when one analyses what is happening, and considers the cash and cost, one has to think again about what we are letting ourselves in for. The admission of 26 countries, all of different structures, and so on, into the Community is a tremendous burden.
I ask two questions. Does the European Community have the resources to deal with that? Has it the staff? The report refers to the addition of 240 members of staff. I do not know how far that will go between 13 countries.
There seems to be a suggestion that the applicant countries will have to provide the cash. I have an uneasy feeling that the cash which has to be provided will come from the Community. The pre-accession cash is provided by the Community to help those countries to prepare for entry. I believe that the
1218
Community will be required to pay to them out of the CAP and so on funds which those countries believe should match ours.
I am mindful that the President of the Community spoke of,
"the chance to create a Europe in which all the peoples of this continent can live together in peace, security, justice, freedom and equality. A democratic Europe where human rights are respected and the rule of law prevails".
That seems fine. But he then spoke of,
"an economically integrated Europe which offers growth and prosperity through a single market"—
I am sure my noble friend, Lord Cockfield, rightly welcomes that, as I do—
"and a single currency".
That smacks of creating a federal Europe which many of us would deplore.
There will be problems among the 13 new applicant nations—the first wave and the second wave. On the cash front, there is the structural and cohesion fund on the one hand; and on the other, the CAP which absorbs roughly half the Community budget. The demands on the structural and cohesion funds will rapidly mount. The new entries will require more and more. But that issue is not as sensitive as the CAP, partly because there is no inter-company trading of the products of the structural and cohesion fund. However, where someone produces wheat with a lot of subsidy, and someone produces another highly subsidised product, it creates competition and dispute between members of the Community.
I declare an interest as I am a partner in a farm at home with one of my sons. The evidence before the committee was that unless the CAP was reformed, no progress could be made on enlargement of Europe. It was anticipated in October that the World Trade Organisation—it was about to meet—would come forward with proposals which would influence necessary CAP changes. As we know, those talks collapsed. So we are back to the very unsatisfactory Berlin European Council settlement. The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, was right to say that it was President Chirac who carved the whole thing up, and carved away the benefits at one stage. But the settlement resulted in no income support being given to the farmers of the applicant countries while the support remained for present members of the European Union. That was clearly not acceptable. Poland made it clear that it was not prepared to be treated as a second-class citizen. That was repeated by a number of potential members. They insist that if they are to join the enlargement of Europe, they should have the same treatment as those already in the Union.
Slovenia stated that agriculture is not so important in economic terms, but one of the pillars of the Slovenian identity is a great emotional feeling towards agriculture. It does not want to be treated differently from anyone else who joins the European Union.
One of the directors-general of the European Commission, Mr van der Pas, gave some clear and helpful evidence. He pointed out that one of the grave difficulties relates to the terms proposed in Berlin. He

1219
said that we are talking of billions of euros to give the applicants the support that applied in the European Union. He anticipated grave difficulty and was unable to put forward a solution. There seemed to be a general feeling that all will be well: that the CAP, will have money provided for it from some unknown source. All the evidence we heard made it clear that the CAP, in anything like its present shape, would not be acceptable to the applicant countries; and any alteration of the CAP which meant the present members providing more for others to join would be quite unacceptable.
The Foreign Office expected the WTO round to result in a re-examination of the CAP without which it believed that negotiations on agriculture would be particularly difficult. The table at Appendix 4 of the report, to which my noble friend, Lord Cockfield, referred, shows that employment in agriculture is 42.3 per cent in 'Turkey and 40 per cent in Romania. It is almost unthinkable that the problem of reducing those figures to a more acceptable level in the economic climate of the EU can be resolved.
I had hoped that sensible proposals would come forward for the reform of the CAP, but I do not see how that can happen. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to the Prime Minister's proposals to reform the CAP. I hate to think how he would seek to impose them on the French, for example, or, come to that, on many a British farmer.
The problem is that whatever CAP concessions are made to applicants, it is likely to be at the cost of the EU farming and agriculture industry. The French will not stand for anything which affects their interest and stake inagriculture. We have only to read the daily papers to confirm that. The UK farming industry is desperate and cannot afford concessions.
Therefore, there appears to be stalemate until a reform of the CAP which will satisfy applicants and not inflict damage on present members can be proposed. Enlargement on the right terms and with the cash that is needed—done slowly and not at too rushed a pace—could be good for Europe and the UK, but there are major obstacles to overcome. I was sorry to see that the Government's response to our report did not appear to recognise those or to put forward proposals that would help to overcome the difficulties.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, the debate and the excellent, lucid, helpful and relevant report on which it is based come at an extraordinary moment in the quickening transformation of the European Union. For those noble Lords who were familiar with eastern Europe before the fall of the wall in Berlin and looked upon that grim edifice from time to time, it is important that we should not lose our sense of wonder at what has happened. This is an extraordinary moment and it befits us in imagination and determination to match it.
1220
In three days' time, the European Council will meet in Helsinki. The decision on opening negotiations for membership with Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and Malta is expected. The second wave thus joins the first. Perhaps the EU is encouraged by the Chinese proverb, "Do not leap a chasm in two jumps"; we have decided to do it in one.
The challenge of the subsequent negotiations will be daunting in detail and of uncertain duration. But the factis that the EU will embark irreversibly on a course which in the end will vastly extend its frontiers and its potential role in the world. As the Hungarian government expressed it in their memorandum to your Lordships' committee:
"The European Union will gain in economic and political strength as well as in global influence".
That at any rate should be our hope and intent and for that reason, as their memorandum argues, this enlargement is ultimately in the common interest of all European nations.
However, the decision to commit to the second wave enlargement in parallel with the first is not driven by optimism or even by general goodwill. The problem of, let us say, 30 chapters of acquis communautaire is far too demanding for that. No, enlargement is driven by necessity.
The committee's previous report in 1997 recognised that:
"Accession to the European Union is widely seen in the countries of the former eastern bloc as an integral part of rejoining the historicculture of Europe to which they belonged before the tide of communism engulfed them".
Then in a particularly telling phrase it states:
"it is seen by them as coming home".
Therefore, this report, published two years later, asserts that after,
"the recent events in the Balkans, it is now even more important to seize the moment—the term 'political imperative' is for once not out of place".
The opportunity of enlargement in the first place was brought about by the fall of the wall in Berlin and the connected events. Kosovo, the second key formative, transformational event of the post-communist period, makes it a necessity. The EU cannot stand still. The consolidation of a democratic Europe requires enlargement. That, indeed, is the imperative.
As we have heard, in practice, this means that of the three Copenhagen criteria for membership—summarised for the committee quite vividly by Mr van der Pas as being, first, the political (the applicant state must be a democracy); secondly, the economic (the applicant state must be able to cope with the competition of the open internal market, what he called "the economic half of European integration"); and, thirdly, that the applicant state must be able to apply the acquis conununautaire—only the first must be met for negotiations to begin, while all must be met for negotiations to be concluded.

1221
That is a bold and clever way forward. It is a response to necessity. It is vital that it does not become a deception. How could that happen? Could the applicant states, both of the first and second waves, be deceived? Finland's Foreign Minister said in a speech to the European Parliament on 1st December:
"For the enlargement process to advance … [we must] have the courage to be open and honest to each other and to the applicant countries and their citizens. The Union cannot tell any applicant country the day when it will become a member of the Union".
Rather, the Foreign Minister argued, the European Union must specify target dates for itself and signal clearly what criteria are to be applied. She then went on to signal clearly to Turkey that it still has a long and difficultroad ahead before fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria. The criterion she plainly had in mind was the political one: democracy and human rights.
If there is not to be deception in this process, there will indeed have to be clarity. In recent decades, the Turks have felt deceived; the prospect of membership seemingly tantalisingly close, only later to be made much more distant. There could also be inadvertent deception if negotiations on the economic and institutional criteria lose momentum and are allowed to drag on indefinitely. In those circumstance, there would of course be excuses aplenty: the pain to some EU states of CAP reform and the continuing momentum of the acquis. It is worth remembering that EMU is the womb of acquis to come; and behind the detail will be the interest groups which believe enlargement to be a threat or which can be persuaded to see enlargement as a threat because of fears of competition.
In the United Kingdom we may feel relatively relaxed about the agricultural and low labour-cost competition from the applicant states. However, protectionism has its advocates here also. The fiasco in Seattle was surely a warning to us all that protectionism is alive, well and, in that particular case, kicking. One specific idea has been already mooted here in the United Kingdom. Indeed, it has apparently been adopted as policy by the present leadership of the Conservative Party. That idea certainly carries within it the potential for deception as we face the historic challenge of enlargement.
It is proposed that, unless other member states agree that further European integration be made optional—a proposal which, in practice, would involve amending the treaties and which, if accepted, must therefore threaten the cohesion of the union—the treaty, which would have to be amended for enlargement, should possibly be vetoed by the United Kingdom. In effect, the proposal is that the EU must either dilute itself into an a la carte concoction; a pick and mix club in which we shall all choose the future rules we like and reject the ones we do not, or the United Kingdom will be ready to veto enlargement.
Such an idea, were it ever to become the policy of a United Kingdom Government, would of course initiate the unravelling of this country's position in the European Union. However, it would do more than that, deeply damaging to Britain though that would
1222
surely be. It would signal a cruel deception that this country has, from the very first moment of opportunity when the Berlin Wall came down, encouraged the hope of applicant states that they would indeed—as this excellent report reminds us—come home to the community of Europe. It would be the worst deception to have encouraged that hope and then to adopt a policy calculated to frustrate it.
I must confess that I was depressed today to read a report in the press of the speech made yesterday by John Maples, the Shadow Foreign Secretary. It is vivid in its language. It refers to the Prime Minister as,
"plotting to sell us out by stealth in Europe".
Mr Maples said that the Prime Minister is going to Helsinki this weekend,
"to concede, concede, concede … to bring his dream of a European superstate ever closer. If Europe is going to continue down the integrationist road, the time has come when Britain has to draw a line".
For many years there has been a soft delusion in the United Kingdom that broadening was an alternative to deepening; that if we could get more members in, we should not have to follow further down the integrationist road. The time for that illusion has run out. If our Union is to be enlarged; if we are to meet the real challenge of the collapse of communism in Europe, we must face the real challenge of building a deeper Europe and not only a broader one.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I continue the somewhat less enthusiastic tone already introduced to the debate by my noble friend Lord Biffen, the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, and my noble friend Lord Boardman. Before I do so, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and his committee for analysing some of the problems that still stand in the way of enlargement.
I must say that I find their report rather optimistic as to the possibility that sufficient solutions may be found in time to save the process. I should have thought that there are at least four stumbling blocks which will not be overcome and which have been referred to in varying degrees by other noble Lords this evening. Those stumbling blocks are adequate reform of the common agricultural policy; adequate reform of the structural and cohesion funds; adequate reform of the EU's institutions; and the eventual acceptance by the applicant countries of the acquis communautaire in full. Personally I should not have believed that there was much chance of the existing members letting in new members gradually or on preferential terms.
So there are reasonable grounds to hope that enlargement will never take place. I believe that that is a very good thing for the continent of Europe and, indeed, for the rest of the planet. It follows that where I find the report wanting is that it simply does not ask the question: is enlargement a good thing? Like its predecessor two years ago, it simply assumes that enlargement is desirable; not only desirable, but

1223
very desirable indeed. The expression "political imperative" is even justified and has been repeated by a number of noble Lords this evening.
The earlier report entitled The Financial Consequences of Enlargement appears to be the basis for that assumption in the present report. It came out with the entirely unsubstantiated and unanalysed statement:
"Enlargement, if successful, could lead to unparalleled security and stability for the peoples of Europe. If the opportunity is missed there could be a slide towards the tensions and instability which have so disfigured Europe in this century".
Indeed, similar words are repeated approvingly in the introduction to the present report. Therefore the committee seems to me to have made the basic mistake which is always made by European politicians and Eurocrats who wish to pursue the European dream of the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe without considering the true eventual cost.
As Herr Kohl put it some three-and-a-half years ago:
"European integration is in reality a question of war or peace in the 21st century".
Or, as M. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg Prime Minister, put it two years ago when defending the EU's arrogant refusal to tell the nation states what their net payments to the EU's annual budget were—the line being that EU membership was so valuable that it could not be measured in mere vulgar taxpayers' money—
"How can you put a price on one hour of peace in Europe? The cost of one hour of peace is nowhere attributed in the Budget".
Those and many similar statements seem to be tacitly accepted by the committee. It seems to accept that the European Union and its enlargement are good for peace in Europe. Indeed, without them, Europe might slide back into war.
I submit that that position should not be taken for granted. It should be examined dispassionately without the glorious music of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony ringing in our ears and perhaps clouding our judgment. One way to start such an examination, as I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House, is to ask two simple questions, which I hope that your Lordships will riot find too simple. First, when did a genuine democracy start a war? Secondly, when have forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations ended in conflict, especially when the ties which bound them unnaturally together were loosened?
The answer to the first question is, "Hardly ever", and perhaps, although I am not a good enough historian, "Never". The answer to the second question is, "Nearly always". Yugoslavia comes to mind, as do the Caucasus and much of Africa. Therefore, to me the guarantor of peace in Europe is democracy, not the new-fangled and possibly dangerous cocktail of the European Union. If Germany and the other EU countries keep their democracies, they are most unlikely to provoke a war. The same goes for the new democracies in the central and eastern European countries, which of course owe their new-found freedom to NATO and not to the EU. That is the main
1224
reason why many of us would prefer to see a Europe of democratic nations trading peacefully together, rather than an unnatural European Union with all the signs of autocracy and corporatism already painted all over it. At the very least, I believe that your Lordships' Select Committee should be objective enough to take a look at this dilemma, which is fundamental to the whole European debate, and reach a reasoned conclusion. Your Lordships' committee should not just take it for granted that the EU and its enlargement will encourage peace in Europe and prevent its slide towards the tensions and instability which have so disfigured Europe this century.
I come to a second assumption which the committee seems to have taken for granted; that is, that it would in fact be good for the developing economies of Eastern Europe to join the European Union on anything like the terms now being demanded by Brussels. Here again, the report proudly quotes its predecessor:
"Accession to the European Union is widely seen … as an integral part of re-joining the historic culture of Europe to which they belonged before the tide of communism engulfed them. It is seen as a coming home".
Other noble Lords have referred to that—a "coming home". Again, I am not so sure.
I know that the political classes in the CEECs say that they are keen for their countries to join the European Union, although doubts are starting to emerge even there. They certainly like the subsidies they receive while they are queuing to join, and who can blame them? But doubts are growing more strongly among some of the business communities which are starting to baulk at the prospect of having to meet the acquis in full. That is scarcely surprising. After all, three of the five leading aspirants to EU membership have the most competitive economies in Europe in terms of business costs, and of course the economies of the European Union are among the least competitive in Europe. And there are the Polish farmers, whose dissatisfaction is beginning to surface, if one is to believe "Newsweek" last week. Many other areas of the economy of Europe are beginning to have their doubts, too.
I should have thought that all that the CEECs really need is defence from NATO and access to the market, which, of course, is denied them. We must not forget the statement of the German who was to have appeared in front of a European committee, quoted by Mr von Ploetz who gave earlier evidence to the committee:
"Yes, we are for enlargement, but no Polish potatoes-not one Polish potato".
I am not alone in this view. I have here a serious study which I have recommended to your Lordships before. Indeed, I sent it out as a sort of Christmas present last year to those on the Government Front Bench whose duties take them into or around this subject. I asked them to let me know if they or their civil servants disagreed with its conclusions and why. The study is called A Coming Home—or Poisoned Chalice? It was published 18 months ago by the Centre for Research into Post-Communist Economies and written by the

1225
distinguished economist, Mr Bill Jamieson, economics editor of the Sunday Telegraph, and by Dr Helen Szamnely, a well- known expert on Eastern Europe.
A number of your Lordships may feel—indeed, I am sure that a number of your Lordships do feel—along the lines of, "Well, these are two such raging eurosceptics that their work cannot be worth reading". But this booklet was widely distributed and no one in the Foreign Office or the Treasury, nor anyone with a europhile tendency, has been able to refute the facts contained in it, most of which are shown in easy graphs and pie charts and impeccably sourced.
Therefore, if the facts are correct, at the very least the question as to whether it really is in the interests of the CEECs to join the EU has to be asked. Here I fear I must be brave enough to take what is only minor issue with something which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, said when he seemed to flirt with the idea that enlargement might underpin democracy in the CEECs. I only venture to disagree because I should have thought that after so many years under the evil boot of communism, the last thing they will do is abandon democracy. But that is, of course, only a view.
However, after the debate I shall present the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who I gather is to take over the chairmanship of the Select Committee from the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, with his free copy of this pamphlet.I hope that it can be taken into account in any similar study by his committee in future. I know of no other study undertaken by the other side which points in the other direction. Likewise, I should be happy to oblige any noble Lord in the Chamber with a free copy if he chooses to ask for it.
I myself go a little further and wonder whether the European Union itself is a good thing, even for its present members. I know that this is somewhat radical thinking in the goldfish bowl of Westminster, when nearly everyone who works here takes the EU for granted and as a long-term and benign fixture. I suppose it is even more difficult for all those who work in Brussels to contemplate redundancy and a Europe unencumbered by the Commission, the Council, the Court and the Parliament. I know that it is not the time to take these thoughts further this evening, but I seem to be among a growing number of people who are coming to see that the Treaty of Rome has spawned a juggernaut which is now out of date, out of control and dangerous. Therefore, I hope that we shall be able to return at some other time to the prospect of a different Europe; of a Europe of democratic nations freely trading in peace together under the protection of NATO. In the meantime, I can only say that I fear it is dangerously naive to assume that enlargement of the European Union is a good thing for the applicant states, for the rest of Europe or for the rest of the world.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and wide-ranging debate on an extremely important subject, enlivened by a series of well informed and pertinent speeches led by the noble
1226
Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. I stand as number 13 in the batting order, in which I may say I feel most comfortable because I performed as number 11 in every single cricket team for which I played. Therefore, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long.
I should like to add my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. He was a superb chairman. He numbers among his forebears, poets and field marshals. We saw glimpses of the gentle, persuasive charms of the poet, but we also saw the driving determination of the field marshal. He is much missed for both estimable qualities.
When we reported on the European Bank, some of us wondered how it would work without in any way disputing the objective. I feel much the same about the new phase of enlargement. There are clearly considerable difficulties which the European Union must face if success is to be achieved. Your Lordships have already heard them outlined. The two most fundamental problems are, first, the necessity of a radical reform of the common agricultural policy; and, secondly, we must feel assured that there will be sufficient funds available to support the accession of the six first-wave states and subsequently the second six.
I fully support the conclusion of the committee that we go ahead. However, as we state, it is the responsibility of the existing members to ensure that the European Union has the appropriate structures and policies in place to permit enlargement, otherwise, we shall all be in considerable trouble.
One of the lessons I learned in management was the wisdom of clarifying the potential hazards. We are embarking on an enterprise which embraces all the areas which have been the subject or centre of European wars for the past 1,000 years: Gibraltar, the border between Spain and France, the Low Countries, the Rhine, the Baltic, Vienna, Prague and the Aegean. Perhaps most sensitive is the Bosporus, the trigger point between Europe and Asia. It combines a very large share of the Roman Empire but, thank heaven, not the Middle East nor the northern coast of Africa.
The European Community is making a tremendous leap of faith in believing that we can weld those historically discordant countries into one single whole. The problems which caused the wars must not be allowed to resurface. The potential not just for peace but also for prosperity is immense. The risks are worth taking but we shall not succeed unless the European Union faces up more realistically to the problems which have already been outlined to your Lordships. The opportunity is there. The existing members of the Community must exercise the courage and wisdom to seize it.
8 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been a constructive debate on an excellent report. In particular, I welcome the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, which emphasised, from the Conservative Benches, the strategic importance of

1227
enlargement. That is a view which most of us share. We are talking about consolidating democracy, security and prosperity across the former socialist Europe and about the changes in institutions and policies which the European Union needs to make in order to adjust that. We know very well that those will be painful changes. One reason for talking about timetables and urgency is that it is only by insisting that enlargement must not be delayed that we shall push some of those painful changes through the Community. But that is not the agenda of a European superstate, the sort of things which the Daily Telegraph talks about. I very much hope that the leaders of the Conservative Party in the other place read the constructive speeches which their colleagues here have been making on the subject.
Of course, this is a question of dual enlargement. We are also engaged in a process—on which this report does not really touch—of the enlargement of NATO. It is extremely important that we co-ordinate EU enlargement and our approach to it with the enlargement of NATO, which is very much under American leadership, and occasionally an American leadership which does not fully understand the differences between enlarging NATO and enlarging the EU. I felt that Madeleine Albright's remarks about including the Ukraine in the European Union were, frankly, unhelpful in current circumstances, just as the remarks from Washington about the ease with which one might absorb Turkey into the European Union are also not very helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, compared the current round of enlargement with previous Mediterranean enlargement. I agree with the report that we must be careful not to make accession more difficult for the new applicants than it was when some of the present member states joined I remember well Mediterranean enlargement. I was engaged professionally in arguing and writing about it at the time. We were extremely generous to those countries. For those who think that the applicant countries are far too poor to join, I well remember my first visit to Lisbon in 1978. On the plane back, the Greek academic I was with asked why Portugal was applying to join the European Community. He said, "Surely it would be better suited in the Lomé Convention". Portugal was an extremely underdeveloped country at that time. There 'were only two people in Lisbon who began to understand the implications of joining the European Community. Its GDP per head was in the order of 30 per cent or less than the European Community average. If one goes to Lisbon today, one can see what an immense success that has been. One can see how EC membership has consolidated Portuguese democracy and the market economy and has made it a modern state. That is what we must do for the countries of central and eastern Europe and that is what we can do for those countries if we approach the matter with a generous and constructive spirit.
1228
Transition periods were granted for those countries and, indeed, insisted on in terms of free movement of labour for those countries. Transition periods m the same sense should be offered to the applicants from the east.
One should also remember that Greece was allowed to join the European Community more quickly than Spain and Portugal, and that one of the tragedies of the process of EU enlargement was that Greece managed to join without a proper domestic debate about the implications and obligations of membership and without the administrative preparation necessary to carry out the obligations of membership. We have suffered from that since then, and in some ways we continue to suffer, in the debate about Cyprus and Greece and Turkey, from a Greek government and a Greek political elite who think that EC membership is a one-way trade and not a set of mutual obligations.
In the central and eastern European countries, transition is already well under way. The Polish economy has been growing by between 5 and 7 per cent per year for the past three years. That is real economic recovery. I was travelling around those countries working with the Soros Foundation in the early 1990s and I was struck by the rapid transition being made, particularly economically and socially. When I first went to Romania in the winter of 1990, I found it one of the most depressing countries that I had ever visited. Romania is still a long way behind Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic but it is much, much better than it was. The market economy is becoming established; there is beginning to be a certain degree of trust in the government; there have been several democratic elections. That is transition under way.
The question which we must now consider is at what point in that long transition period do we allow full membership, and how far we are prepared to permit the completion of the transition after formal membership. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will argue vigorously in Helsinki and later that on questions like environmental standards and health and safety standards, where huge investment must he made over a long period, such transition may be allowed after accession and is not insisted on before accession.
I welcome the signal given to the second group of applicants that they are also to open negotiations. We understand that they will not join at the same time but it was an important gesture of confidence to the states, and in particular Romania and Bulgaria which suffered badly from the events in Bosnia and Kosovo, that they are not to be left outside; that they will follow on in their turn. I welcome also the signals which the Government and the Prime Minister have been making to the small and weak states of south-eastern Europe—Albania, Macedonia and perhaps, in time, also Montenegro and Yugoslavia—that through the Stabilisation Pact, the long-term prospects of membership for them are being opened up.
The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, asked where Europe ends and how much further enlargement may go. I have two questions on that. The first and the more immediate is about Cyprus and

1229
Turkey. We have not discussed Cyprus very much during this debate. In some ways, Cyprus is an unexploded bomb in the current enlargement negotiations. I read a report from Brussels last week that the Greek Government are still threatening to veto the whole enlargement process if Cyprus is not allowed in on current terms before the present situation in Cyprus is remedied. We must be extremely careful how we play the whole Cyprus and Turkish dimension.
I could go on, but need not do so, about a number of problems with the economy in Cyprus. After all, money laundering is one of the most prosperous activities in Nicosia at present.
The problems with Turkey are similar to those with Greece. If Turkey becomes a candidate, we must ensure that there begins a domestic debate about the implications and obligations of membership, all the way through from human and civil rights to fully democratic government and civil control of the military. As far as I am aware, that debate has not yet really got under way in Ankara. We must think through very carefully the implications of a European Union which has a direct border with Iraq, Iran and Syria. Nicosia is only 200 kilometres away from Beirut and Tel Aviv. That takes us into an extremely large and complex area.
So we need to develop a strategic approach to the neighbours, to those who will not come in in the foreseeable future. An association pattern which does not imply only dependent status for Ukraine and for Russia is an important part of what we now need to be thinking about. Sadly, I do not yet see any strong indication that Her Majesty's Government or others are yet thinking about it.
I disagree somewhat with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, about borders. As far as we can, we must avoid drawing the borders of Europe too tightly. I do not want to shut off Western Ukraine from Eastern Poland. That is the demand which the Germans are, in effect, making of the Poles. The trade between Lublin and Lviv is desirable. The exchanges which take place across that border are important. Somehow we must find a way of shaving the gap between the privileged insiders and the excluded outsiders so that Ukraine and others do not feel excluded in the long run. We therefore need an open association approach and an effective common foreign and security policy.
This is an ambitious agenda. It will be difficult for the European Union to adjust. However, with the greatest respect to noble Lords present, I suggest that jeremiads of the sort we have had from a number of participants in the debate who say, "Woe, woe, it will all be dreadful", and yet offer no answers, are not necessarily the best way forward.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I do not believe he is quite right when he says that we did not have any answers.
1230
We have positive, forward-looking answers which do not happen to agree with the views of the noble Lord or the report.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I take that back. Indeed, noble Lords have some idealistic and interesting answers which, I agree, I certainly do not share. So far as I am aware, they are not shared by Her Majesty's Government. I am not even sure that the Conservative leadership fully shares them either. However, I read in the Daily Telegraph, with great interest, the idea that we should join NAFTA.
How should Her Majesty's Government persuade the reluctant British public and reluctant governments and publics in the other European Union member states that enlargement is a political imperative and a strategic desirability? In the response of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the report, there is an interesting phrase which states:
"but there is a lack of public engagement with the issue which the Government intends to address".
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little about how the Government intend to address this. Sending Ministers around northern England in buses is not quite the answer.
Clearly we need to transform public attitudes in this country and particularly in countries such as France where there is deep resistance to overall enlargement. That will require the Prime Minister to commit time and effort. I regret that he has twice postponed his proposed visit to Warsaw. After all, Poland is the most important country due to come in. That is the sort of matter that we need to think about. We need to remind people in this country of our historic links with Poland; the contribution which Poles in the army and air force made to the defence of Britain during the Second World War. That is the way to make this real. We should perhaps have more in the way of two-way military visits, making the best of what the British Army is doing to help those countries as a way of symbolising that we share a sense of common history and perhaps a common fate.
I welcomed the Hungarian state visit as one small part of this earlier this year. Perhaps we should be thinking about a Romanian state visit or a succession of them to emphasise to the British public that this region is now part of our world.
The temptations to delay are very real. There are always pressures from lobbies within the EU not to accept Czech apples or Bulgarian raspberries. Scottish raspberry growers have their own interests. Governments have to impose political imperatives to overcome them. There is a real danger of letting these countries drift into what the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, called an expectation gap, between what they have been led to expect by us over the past 10 years and what we may not perhaps be prepared to give them in the next five years. There are dangers in Poland of a nationalist reaction. My noble friend Lady Williams talked about the nationalist reaction within Russia. That is the sort of thing that we must avoid.

1231
Enlargement of both the European Union and NATO is an immensely complex exercise. But it should be one of the strategic objectives of British foreign policy and of European foreign policy.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, sits down, perhaps I might ask him a question in the light of his perceptive comments about Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. Would he agree that there could realistically be no enlargement of any sort until the EU mends its fences with Turkey? The reason is to be found in paragraph 75 of the report on page 20 in which it is made clear that Greece intends to veto the accession of all other applicant countries if Cyprus is not admitted. Indeed, as the noble Lord stated, that was reconfirmed to him when he visited Brussels last week.
However, under the terms of the 1959 Zurich and London Accords ratified by a solemn and binding treaty in 1960, which is still in force, Cyprus cannot join the EU without Turkey's permission. That permission will not be granted unless Turkey is admitted.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I share many of the views expressed by the noble Lord. There is a real danger of Greek blackmail, to put it bluntly. It is important that we avoid getting into a situation in which the Greeks are as successful in bouncing the European Union on Cypriot entry as they were in Corfu some years ago in bouncing other member states, including the then British Conservative Government, into putting Cyprus and Malta at the top of the list of candidates. I very much hope that the British Government are aware of such dangers.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too, thank the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, for introducing the debate so admirably. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell and his committee on this excellent report. It is a great loss to the House that we no longer have the benefit of the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. To my mind, that shows the folly of the Government in excluding the experience and good sense of so many hereditary Peers from this House, even if it is for only a short while.
The report makes most informative and interesting reading. It will no doubt be highly respected by all the people concerned, as reports from the House of Lords always are. This superb debate has been colourful, lively and in many ways very serious, with important contributions. I hope I shall be forgiven if at this late hour I do not go into many details or mention all the speakers.
Many say that enlargement is as important to the European Union as are the social security reforms to the home agenda. The committee's support for accession and negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania to be given high priority at Helsinki this weekend is to be welcomed. This is especially so in the case of Bulgaria after its unstinted support for NATO
1232
during the Kosovo war, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. We owe support to these former Iron Curtain countries.
During my last session in the European Parliament in May 1994, our final task was to ratify the previous enlargement with Austria, Sweden and Finland. That was one of the few responsibilities or competencies, as it is known in the jargon, of the European Parliament. Alas, there is no record of the debate as there is no Hansard from the committees. We debated deep into the night, much the same debate as we are having here tonight in your Lordships' House. One group of members was determined to have the three countries join as soon as possible. Others felt that if we did not make the necessary institutional changes to cope with these three new members it would be a mistake and we would have failed in our duties. It was a narrow vote which was then mirrored later in the plenary. The world's press was waiting outside and it was headline news everywhere. The rest is history and we have now moved to another phase.
We are now looking at enlargement to a number of applicant countries with borders that will run to the old Soviet Union. The result will be a very different mixture of national traditions and of richer and poorer countries. Over 100 million people have asked to join the European Union, which will eventually have almost 500 million people, twice as many as the United States and three times as many as Russia, as we heard in the eloquent speech of my noble friend Lord Biffen.
As Mr Archie Norman said so forcefully in the other place last week,
"The first challenge is creating a EU that can allow for flexibility to accommodate a much more diverse group of member states".
As is recommended in item 62 of the report,
"the procedure for flexibility laid down in the treaty should he simplified
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the regatta idea needs looking at.
Ten years ago Europe was agog with the fall of the Berlin Wall and, with it, the end of a decade of a Europe divided by dictatorship and despair. We British Conservatives were among the first to raise our arms in welcoming the former communist countries back to where they belong. I was privileged to have been able to campaign in several countries and to act as an official observer in others. It was a moving experience that I shall never forget. Both John Major and Margaret Thatcher realised the importance of not hesitating about enlargement. Banishing our lost allies once again into the political and economic wilderness would have been madness. They saw that that would be wrong morally, politically and economically. Based on the principle of democracy, fraternity and the need to heal the deep scars left by the communist era, enlargement would unite a continent that historically and culturally—as we heard this evening—should he one.
So where are we today, 10 years on? With all the celebrations that we had last month, the answer is: not as far as we should be. As item 31 spells out so clearly, the harsh reality is that not a single of the new democracies of eastern and central Europe is a member

1233
of the European Union. Was perhaps enlargement a misguided ambition and one we should abandon, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pearson? I am afraid he will not be surprised that I disagree with him once again.
I would argue that enlargement was definitely not a misguided ambition; an emphatic no. Much as we may say we want enlargement, it cannot happen without reforming the European Union and, in particular, its institutions. By and large, Amsterdam failed to prepare the institutions for enlargement. Unless the institutions are right, the policies will never be right. Moreover, would it not be fairer to settle the institutions first so that the applicant countries know what the club rules were before they join?
There are several challenges before enlargement can take place that are spelt out clearly in the report. First, there is the need to reform the common agricultural policy. Secondly, there is the need to reform the structural and regional funds; and, thirdly, there is the need to streamline the institutions of the European Union, including the re-weighting of votes in the Council. On the last matter, it is understood by the nation states that most tax and foreign policy will stay national responsibilities. That must be right. It is an interesting reflection on how nervously the 15 are proceeding towards the federal superstate featured in the Eurosceptic nightmare. In most federations, foreign and fiscal policies are the first to be centralised.
As my noble friend Lord Moynihan explained so clearly, and as Mr. Archie Norman too stressed in the other place, the importance of paying for enlargement has not been taken seriously enough. From my noble friend Lord Cockfield we heard of the importance of money in the European Union and the success of the Single European Act. That was an undoubted success upon which I as one Conservative salute him. A partnership is needed, with the European Union helping applicants to prepare.
Over recent years, the European Union has mobilised more support for the former eastern bloc countries than the United States put into Europe under the Marshall Plan. I fear that enlargement will require even more money than the Commission estimates. However, it is imperative that the European Union stays within its own resource ceiling of 1.27 per cent of the European Union GDP.
The proposals for the structural and cohesion fund also appear unsatisfactory. The criteria for distributing the overall allocations appear to be fundamentally flawed. The main purpose of the fund is to reduce the disparities within the Union. We should not fear Europe but, like the other members, make sure it works for us. We should not fear enlargement, but make it profitable for the whole Union. We must not fear reform. If the Union does not grow to encompass all the applicant states when they
1234
meet the necessary criteria, we shall have failed to provide for the future security and stability of the whole continent. It has been said that,
"getting enlargement right is the single greatest challenge, and potentially the most rewarding one, that the European Union will ever encounter".
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Economist.
Extending peace and prosperity, free trade and rule of law elsewhere in Europe touches on the very foundations of Conservative beliefs and ambitions. But it cannot happen overnight. It takes time to change. Think how long it took for us to conform to the single market legislation; time, work and commitment. Now think how long it takes a former communist dictatorship to become a real democracy with a real, liberal economy. All the applicant countries will somehow have to conform to the acquis. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, explained so well the difficulty of that.
It would be wrong to lay the blame for the lack of progress on enlargement on those aspirant countries sitting outside the European Union—Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania and Slovenia. After all, it is they who are knocking on our door. Is the real problem the lack of will inside that we heard of from my noble friend Lord Biffen and the noble Lord, Lord Shore? Has Europe really got cold feet? In a way it has, but it is a socialist-run Europe that has cold feet. It is clear that enlargement has been put on the back burner by socialist governments whose priorities are not our priorities. The fact is that enlargement simply frightens the left-wingers; after all, it emphasises all those values with which they are least comfortable.
For us, enlargement means an outward looking Europe that will encourage free trade across the continent; it is one which will deliver wider markets and more prosperity. Theirs is an inward-looking, defensive agenda, where safeguarding the rights of workers with a raft of expensive, social legislation is the priority, above the future of the rest of the people of Europe. Today we had another example of a damaging piece of legislation, the levy of droit de suite, which looks as though it is about to be agreed.
We do not see enlargement as a threat, but as an opportunity. Unfortunately, we are not running the summit agenda. Thirteen of the 15 governments in Europe are socialist. Enlargement was postponed at Amsterdam and key issues surrounding its future were never discussed.
Outlined in Agenda 2000 was the absolute need to reform the common agricultural policy and the structural fund. The European Union has been slow in developing these proposals. It is doubtful whether they amount to a coherent strategy. We all agree that the European Union must change if it is to accommodate such a massive expansion of membership. How can Spain and Poland fit into the common agricultural policy? The answer is that they cannot; that is, not into the CAP which we know today.

1235
If the mould cannot expand, why not look for a new one? This goes for policy, as well as institutional questions. It is clear that what works well for 12 and then 15 countries is unlikely to work for 25 countries. We all agree on this point. But how do we solve one of the many problems set out in the report?
Some in the present European Union say that we must unite still further; or, indeed, deepen, if you like to use the old jargon. Then, from this united, strengthened position, the Union will be able to cope with expansion. However, we believe that we must also look for more imaginative and flexible ways to accommodate more members. It remains a policy to which we have always been committed. Flexibility for us has always gone hand in hand with enlargement. We must remember that we have welcomed each enlargement in the European Union. Today, we cannot imagine a European Union without Portugal or Spain—countries which were under dictatorships this century, right-wing ones on that occasion.
If we give up on enlargement, we shall have turned our back on our principles and on support and encouragement for the applicant countries. This would be a disaster. Enlargement should be hugely beneficial for everyone and remains, I believe, our historic obligation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether she could clarify the confusion in my mind as a result of her remarks. She said that she regarded the single market as a great achievement; indeed, one of the greatest achievements of the Conservative Party, and so on, in Europe. But later she castigated—and rightly so—the droit de suite legislation, which is contributing to the destruction of our extremely important international art market.
My noble friend might also have mentioned another current directive—the take-over directive—which is in the process of destroying our mergers and acquisitions industry in the City of London. My noble friend is surely aware that these two directives come straight from the single market: they are single market legislation with qualified majority voting. Can she tell us, briefly, what advantages she sees in the single market that we could not have had from the common market?
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned two pieces of legislation. Unfortunately, all is not perfect even in the best of all possible worlds. When I was in the European Parliament, there was much legislation with which we did not agree and which we did not like; but we were in opposition and were voted down every time. As long as there is the possibility of being voted down, pieces of legislation that I would consider as not being free market— indeed, not reflecting the original idea that my noble friend Lord Cockfield had in the Single European Act—are those that we would not pass.
8.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I, too, want to pay tribute to the work of the members and staff of the sub-committee, many of whom we were privileged to hear from this evening. In particular, I am mindful that it was the last report presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, before his departure from this House. The report displays all the expertise and careful scrutiny that this House came to expect from the sub-committee during the noble Lord's tenure as its chairman. He will be a hard act to follow. However, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, so ably demonstrated, I am sure that the committee will none the less continue to show a deep and perceptive interest in the Government's dealings within the European Union. I am confident that my noble friend Lord Tomlinson will be more than able to meet the challenge as chairman.
Perhaps I may say straight away that the Government welcome the report; and not just because we have identical views on the significance of enlargement. The report was undertaken because of the committee's concern that the enlargement process might be slowing down. I hope that the evidence taken by the committee has demonstrated that this is not the case. This is not by any means to say that the Government are complacent about enlargement. On the contrary, the United Kingdom has long played a leading and constructive role in EU enlargement. The Prime Minister galvanised the process in May when he called for the Helsinki European Council meeting to invite six more countries—Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Malta—to begin negotiations. I am confident that this weekend the Council will now do so.
Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the Prime Minister has committed both time and effort to this issue. Indeed, if one were to listen to some elements of the media, he concentrates on nothing else.
As the Government's response to the report recognises, an information and media strategy on enlargement is necessary, especially as negotiations near their close. This is necessary both in member states and in acceding states. The UK has a role to play in this. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister has written an article for the press for publication this week about the six countries that are joining negotiations in the new year. The article emphasises the support of Her Majesty's Government for enlargement and the welcome that awaits their countries in the European Union.
In emphasising the importance of enlargement, the committee's report says—I do not hesitate to quote this, although it has been mentioned by other speakers:
"We have consistently supported enlargement of the European Union to bring in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe since it first became possible as a result of the political changes in those States. We believe that after the recent events in the Balkans it is now even more important to seize the moment—the term `political imperative' is, for once, not out of place".

1237
I could not agree more. I very much wish to welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the importance of using enlargement as an opportunity to heal the divisions and reap the fruits of peace. Coming from Opposition Benches, those were indeed welcome words. The pledge made of the Loyal Opposition's support for enlargement, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, was also warming to this side of the House; indeed, I dare say, to all sides of the House.
I am most grateful for the sage good sense of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who has such a comprehensive command of the historical challenges with which we have all had to grapple over the past 30 years. I very much welcome his endorsement: I believe he referred to the same diagnosis but a different remedy.
We will continue to maintain the pressure for enlargement. Enlargement is not only good for the applicant and member states; it is also good for the future of the European Union. In inviting new states to join the EU, we offer these countries the prospect of political stability and economic growth that we in Western Europe have enjoyed for many decades. I cannot but agree with my noble friends Lord Harrison and Lord Tomlinson, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and many other speakers who emphasised the benefits of enlargement in terms of the enhancement of stability and prosperity in Europe.
Promoting enlargement is a policy with a clear ethical dimension. We have all witnessed the terrible suffering and injustice that have taken place in the former Yugoslavia. We are all aware that Turkey still does not meet the Copenhagen criteria for membership in areas such as human rights and its treatment of minorities. Even some of the applicant countries only recently met these Copenhagen political criteria. The prospect of EU accession is a clear catalyst for political and social change. We are bringing countries that used to lie behind the Iron Curtain fully into the political, economic and cultural life of the European Union. It is the most important policy that the EU could pursue. I am glad to say that it is being pursued vigorously and that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of this process. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, need have no fear that the Copenhagen criteria will be diluted. Adherence to their principles secures the goals that we all seek. Neither shall we shirk from the difficult choices, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, fears.
It would not surprise any close observer of the proceedings of this House to note that noble Lords have identified with their usual acuity the most complex issues facing us in the enlargement process. The noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and, for different reasons, the noble Lord, Lord Biffen, have emphasised the committee's concerns about transitional periods. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Shore, raised the related issue of transitional arrangements in agricultural markets, together with the noble Lords,
1238
Lord Boardman and Lord Hussey, just to mention two others, and particularly the reform of the common agricultural policy.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, mentioned concerns about the impact of Turkey's candidacy. The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, highlighted the many questions of institutional reform which arise directly out of the enlargement process and asked whether there are funds available to enable enlargement to be successful. It will come as little surprise to anyone who has been involved in the European debate to note that the noble Lords, Lord Biffen, Lord Pearson and Lord Shore, suggested that we were on a hiding to nothing, that disaster faced us and that the dangers of enlargement were so great as to give us pause for thought that it might never happen.
I should deal with the one area where we do not entirely share the committee's opinion. The committee's sense that the Government have hardened their stance on the issue of transition periods for the implementation in full of the EU acquis communautaire is unfounded. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, was able, on behalf of the committee, to accept that it was wrong in that regard. It is clearly desirable that new member states should implement the acquis in full as soon as they join. We shall continue to urge them to do so. But we subscribe to the common EU negotiating position which allows that in certain circumstances transition periods may be necessary. It makes clear that,
"Such requests for any transitional measures shall be limited in time and scope, and accompanied by a plan with clearly defined stages for application of the acquis".
The United Kingdom has agreed this mandate and will continue to adhere to it. This means that we shall look sympathetically at requests for time-bound transitional periods where a sensible case can be made.
I respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. As the noble Lord recognised, transitional periods played an important part in all previous accessions. They are a tried and trusted means of integrating new member states into European Union policies in an orderly fashion, but in no previous accession did this lead to a two-tier Europe. New member states have always played a full role in decision-making in the European Union from the moment they joined. This applied as much to areas where the new members enjoyed transitional periods as to policies where they took on board the full acquis from day one. While I concede that there may be areas of policy where the applicants will not implement EU legislation in full for a temporary period, I do not think that this amounts to a two-tier Europe. After all, we do not want to imply that what is on offer is some kind of second-class citizenship.
I respond to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. She mentioned the important issue of the impact of enlargement on industry in applicant countries. The objective of enlargement is to extend prosperity to the acceding countries, not impoverish them. That is why the Copenhagen economic criteria which applicants must

1239
meet by accession include the ability to cope with the competitive pressures of the single market. Of course once they have acceded, the applicants will have access to the European Union structural funds. These are precisely designed to help countries cope with the social and economic pressures arising from the need for industrial restructuring. This is in addition to the substantial pre-accession aid that the applicants will receive.
The noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Boardman, among others, expressed acute concern at the common agricultural policy. The Berlin European Council agreed important reforms to the common agricultural policy. EU farm support prices were reduced, bringing them closer to levels in the applicant countries. This will make accession easier. Berlin also set aside funds to finance the common agricultural policy in the new member states. The funds will finance the common agricultural policy market support measures such as intervention and export subsidies. But no provision was made for direct payments for their farmers. Instead the EU decided to focus its aid on promoting structural adjustment in the applicant countries, including in the environmental area, rather than on paying subsidies to their farmers. Berlin set aside substantial structural funds for the new member states. By the year 2006 these would be worth 12 billion euro a year. That is roughly equivalent to 4 per cent of the combined GNP of the six countries currently in negotiations.
The Government believe that further common agricultural policy reform is highly desirable and will continue to argue the case strongly. I understand the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and others with regard to the World Trade Organisation negotiations. Despite the absence of an agreement at Seattle last week to launch a comprehensive round of trade negotiations, negotiations on agricultural liberalisation will begin under WTO auspices in January next year.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Before she leaves the subject of agriculture will she respond to a question that I asked about the statement made on behalf of the Prime Minister that was reported in the press today to the effect that agricultural subsidies would be redirected to environmental development and tourism? Is that specifically a British initiative or an EU one, as that was not too clear in the reports?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I confirm that the rural development component of the common agricultural policy which will extend to the new member states includes provisions for funding environmental development and tourism. That is not a unilateral policy but one common to the EU as a whole.
As I said, negotiations on agricultural liberalisation will add to the pressure for further reform of the common agricultural policy. We expect a further round of reforms to be agreed before the Berlin financial perspective ends in 2006. This might help the
1240
enlargement process. But there is no reason why an absence of further reform should delay enlargement assuming sensible transitional arrangements can be devised.
The committee's report contains an excellent account of the history and progress of this round of enlargement. As outlined by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, in opening this debate, noble Lords will be aware that the accession process was launched on 30th March 1998 under the UK presidency. Accession negotiations with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia then opened on 31st March 1998. Twenty-three of the 31 chapters for negotiation have been opened and the latest one, the environment, at today's accession conference in Brussels. The Portuguese presidency expects to finish opening the eight remaining chapters during its tenure in the first half of next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, rightly concentrated on the need for openness and honesty in the implementation of the process. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are firmly committed to promoting both those elements.
Noble Lords will be aware that there is no formal timetable for negotiation. It is difficult to set a timetable for completion of negotiations at this stage. I very much welcomed the comments made about that issue. Indeed, to set a timetable might risk raising false hopes oreven demotivating the applicants. After further progress in negotiations we should be prepared to consider a target for their conclusion. It is true that applicants use their own target dates such as 2002 and 2003 to motivate the reform process at home. Although they are ambitious we hope that the applicants will come close to understanding the realities that face them and also come close to meeting them. The faster the applicants prepare themselves for accession and the implementation of the acquis communautaire, the faster they can join. The coincidence of the EU's own proposed target dates for institutional reform in about 2002, which the Government support, is a welcome one.
At this stage it is realistic for both sides in the negotiations to be working towards their own readiness in anticipation of what we hope will be a swift enlargement process. There is widespread agreement among member states that differentiation should be a hallmark of negotiations in future. It is important that each applicant should be considered on its own merits.
It is logical to expect some countries to make progress faster than others, but it is important that all applicants keep moving towards membership, reforming their economies and raising their administrative standards. Both the European Union and the applicant states themselves recognise the vital importance of ensuring strong, external borders after accession. That will require substantial preparation and, in some cases, major investment. The European Union has made this a priority area for pre-accession aid under the European Union's PHARE programme.

1241
I agree with noble Lords and in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who raised the issue, that this is an area in which we need to remain vigilant.
The Commission's annual progress reports on the candidate countries published in October showed that they have all made progress in the last year. All 12 countries which are or which will soon be in negotiation meet the Copenhagen political criteria. Indeed, it is on that basis that they are negotiating to join the EU. There has also been real progress towards meeting the challenging Copenhagen economic criteria. I agree wholeheartedly with all noble Lords who outlined the benefits which flow from such accession. I accept entirely that it is an important consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, raised the issue of Russia, Ukraine and the other countries. There are historic economic links between the people of these countries with several of the countries in the accession process. Clearly, these are areas that will be discussed in the accession negotiations. I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall be pressing for imaginative solutions to these issues to help ensure that enlargement does not have a divisive effect on the region as a whole.
I turn to Turkey, which was a subject raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Biffen. It is clear that denying candidate status to Turkey in Helsinki while inviting others to open accession negotiations would severely damage EU-Turkey relations. By offering the prospect of membership we give Turkey a clear incentive to act on human rights; we help to improve Greece-Turkey relations; and we provide support for a political settlement in Cyprus. I feel sure that noble Lords will agree that these are all laudable aims.
As regards Cyprus in particular, the EU's objective is accession following a political settlement on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal Cyprus. Settlement is not for us a pre-condition of accession, but clearly it would be easier for a reunited Cyprus to join the EU. We are working hard for a settlement. We warmly welcomed the acceptance by the parties of the invitation of the United Nations Secretary General to settlement talks in New York on 3rd December.
Enlargement is not just about the applicant countries preparing to join the European Union. It is also about member states preparing to receive them. We took the first step at the Berlin Summit in March which agreed policy reforms of the common agricultural policy financing arrangements and of structural spending. The task is now institutional reform. We want EU institutions that are effective, transparent, democratic and ready to face the challenge of enlargement. If they are to become so, there is clearly a need for more change. That is why we embrace the opportunity provided by the intergovernmental conference. To block progress now as some may suggest—or, one would almost believe, is
1242
wanted by the noble Lord, Lord Shore—could only hold back both the reform process and enlargement itself.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness giving way. I find her brief extraordinarily unrealistic. Having listened to the debate I cannot really believe that she feels her reply is adequate. I put to the noble Baroness that it is no good misrepresenting my position. I would very much like enlargement—that is to say, bringing in the countries of eastern and central Europe. I would welcome that even more than my noble friend because I believe that their presence within the European Union would put an end to the Franco-German nightmare of a really integrated single European state.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly had no intention of misrepresenting the views of the noble Lords. I say very clearly that I believe what we are doing is realistic as regards enlargement. It is essential for the peace and stability of Europe. It is right and well ordered.
I say straight away that being positive does not mean that we are starry eyed. We will defend Britain's interests as every other member state will defend its own. But we are quite clear that Britain's interests are best served by successful enlargement backed up by an effective and transparent institutional structure.
I take up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I am confident that the heads of government will agree at Helsinki that the necessary institutional changes will be in place in time for decisions on accession to be taken from 2002. That means not only concluding the intergovernmental conference in time but ensuring that national ratification procedures are complete. I welcome the support of the noble Lord for a focused IGC delivering practical measures to pave the way for enlargement. It came as a delight to my ears to hear that the Loyal Opposition were acknowledging that.
Too wide an agenda for the IGC would be a mistake. That would risk a delay to the end of the IGC and possibly to enlargement itself. So the focus remains clear. I confirm also to noble Lords that the Government's White Paper on the IGC will set out their approach in general and will address the key issues in the IGC in detail. I invite noble Lords to recall that the protocol agreed at the Amsterdam European Council meeting made a clear link between the number of commissioners and the weight of votes in the Council. We stand by that.
There is much that can be done to reform the institutions without changing the treaty. Enlargement is a political imperative. That is why the Government have championed it in Europe and will continue to do so. The European Council meeting this weekend will once again demonstrate our commitment to developing a European Union that embraces the whole of Europe.

1243
I commend the committee on its report—I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Government are able to agree with so much of what it says—and for its broad support for enlargement. I assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to press for rapid and successful enlargement of the European Union, which will benefit all its members, both present and future. Once again, I express my appreciation to all those who took part in the preparation of the report and to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I cart certainly say that the debate has shown the House at its best.
9 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, this has been a fascinating and far-reaching debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. However, despite some reservations, I do not see this as a matter of the coming home of a poisoned chalice, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. It is not only a matter of promoting peace in Europe; the objective is to establish long-term stability. Clearly, there will be many challenges ahead and the need for further reforms.
Several speakers pointed out that many of the applicant countries will find it difficult to implement the acquis. conitnunautaire. However, I am extremely heartened by the words of the Minister when she said that the Government are committed to flexibility in the transitional period.
I also welcome the point made very clearly by the Minister that this is not only a matter of the applicant countries meeting the challenges of the acquis communautaire, but that it also concerns the readiness for enlargement both of applicant countries and the nations of the European Union. Getting enlargement right will be one of the greatest challenges to face the Continent of Europe. To that end, I wish the Prime Minister and the Government all the best in Helsinki this coming weekend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Delegated Legislation
9.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree Lord Dean of Harptree rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will support changes in procedure to improve parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have no right to reply at the end of the debate, perhaps I may begin by thanking all noble Lords who have agreed to participate in it. They come from all parts of the House. I am also particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has agreed to reply to the debate on behalf of the Government. Furthermore, I am sure that all noble Lords are looking forward with great interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. When I saw the list of speakers, such is the expertise and distinction
1244
represented there, that I wondered whether I should simply put my Question and then sit down. However, I realised that that would be discourteous to the House.
It is generally agreed in all parts of the House that delegated legislation has increased, is increasing and will not diminish. Today, legislation covers so many aspects of our personal and business lives and is so detailed that delegation is unavoidable. That is a fact of life. However, I suggest that if we cannot stop it, we must control it better.
I am indebted to the Library for providing some of the historical background. The origins—the germs—can be traced back to Tudor times. In the Statute of Proclamations, Parliament devolved some of its legislative powers to Henry VIII. He was empowered to legislate by proclamation to deal with sudden emergencies. It is quite significant that that statute was repealed on his death in 1547. However, I suggest that this is an early example of the fact that the full parliamentary process can be too slow. Then, as now, it is necessary to provide for speed, flexibility and quick reaction to events. However, such powers should always be subject to the proper parliamentary safeguards.
In your Lordships' House, we have the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I had the privilege to serve on that committee until I was rotated off, having completed my full term. The committee considers all Bills and whether any delegated powers contained in them are appropriate. It also considers whether those powers should be subject to affirmative or negative resolution. That is an important safeguard for your Lordships' House, in particular with skeleton Bills. All governments will try to introduce skeleton Bills if they think that they can get away with it. For that reason, scrutiny is an important safeguard.
But, of course, that Select Committee is not able to consider the merits of orders outside its terms of reference. The committee's value to the House, while very useful, is limited. Recently, the committee produced a special report—House of Lords Paper 112 of 27th October 1999. I shall quote one sentence from that report
"There is a widespread belief that the provision for parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation Can be substantially improved".
That has come from a committee of your Lordships' House that is highly respected. Indeed, I happened to be a member of the committee at the time, and I would have put it rather more strongly. I tend to think that, at the moment, the procedures are woefully inadequate.
What should be done? I believe that there is a growing view in your Lordships' House that we should be able to amend or reject statutory instruments, given their growing importance. I am not suggesting an absolute veto, but I think that we should be able to send these instruments back to the House of Commons, as we do with primary legislation, and ask it to think again. It would not be an absolute veto. If we adopt a new procedure, it would be wholly appropriate that the supremacy of the elected Chamber should be preserved by the Parliament Acts.
I do not want to be dogmatic about the procedures. This is a complicated matter. It may well be that there is a greater role for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation or other committees. It may be that different procedures are needed for affirmative resolutions or for prayers against negative resolutions. These are all matters which need consideration. All I am suggesting— it is a very modest suggestion—is that the time is now ripe for all these matters to be considered by either the Liaison Committee or the Procedure Committee in your Lordships' House.
What are the arguments against? I know what the noble and learned Lord will say first of all— it is not for the Government. Of course he is right: it is not for the Government. It is a matter for the House. But your Lordships know very well that no change in procedure is likely to succeed unless it has the support of the government of the day. For example, the Moses Room Committees would never have come into operation had they not at the time had the support of my noble friend Lord Cranborne. The new committee in another place, the Westminster Hall committee, would never have come into operation had it not received the blessing of the Government. I am saying that any change in procedure needs the support of the government of the day.
The next argument could be "Wait for Wakeham". I know that the noble and learned Lord will produce that argument. He did so at Question Time on 29th November. Of course we will all be very interested to hear what the Royal Commission produces, but the reality is that the procedure of your Lordships' House is a matter for your Lordships' House. We should decide it and we should get on with it.
Another argument could well be that we are an interim House and we should not mess about with procedure. But we have the authority of no less than the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that we are now more legitimate. We have 92 hereditary colleagues who have been recently elected. They are much more legitimate than me. Furthermore, it is normal for any changes in procedure to be introduced on an experimental basis. We say, "Let's have a go and see how it works out". If it does not work out, we do not have to pursue it. If it is successful, we have a great thing to offer to the reformed House. We will be able to say, "We have improved our procedures on delegated legislation. Here it is for you to take forward".
In conclusion, I think it is generally agreed that neither House is able to do a proper job in scrutinising delegated legislation. The failure is more blatant with every year that passes. I hope your Lordships will agree that the time is ripe for this matter to be considered and for suggestions for reform to be made by the appropriate committee of your Lordships' House. I hope, too, that Her Majesty's Government will give this proposal a fair wind.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House to make my maiden speech. I
1246
rise to my feet with three emotions. I have a feeling of trepidation at the task which lies before me, not least the immediate one of addressing your Lordships for the first time today. Regarding my long-term task, I hope that I am able to make a worthwhile contribution to the workings of the House. I also have a feeling of humility as I stand before your Lordships today knowing the contribution that you in this House have made to British public life. Coupled with that feeling of humility is a feeling of pride that I have been "chosen" to serve in your Lordships' House.
By and large, those are the same emotions I experienced some four years ago when I was elected chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party. In that role, I hope that I have helped to guide that party through the most politically interesting and challenging years in the history of Northern Ireland. Those years have seen the devolution of many powers from Westminster to the new Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland.
Just as Northern Ireland is experiencing change and development, so, too, is this House; and with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, there will be more change to come. I do not want my contribution to change and development to be an end to the tradition whereby new Peers are heard in silence, so I shall be careful what I say in respect of changes in procedure.
The devolution of power not only to Northern Ireland but also to Scotland and Wales will have a major impact on how we conduct our business in this House. Indeed, the transfer of responsibility for primary legislation to the devolved administrations will mean also a transfer in responsibility for delegated legislation.
In the new Northern Ireland Assembly, the basic procedures for Bills—that is, primary legislation—are described at paragraph 26 of the Belfast agreement, and are set out in much greater depth in Sections 5 to 15 of Part II of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. To put it mildly, the legal restraints are extremely tightly drawn and the mechanisms for the control of the various stages of a Bill are uniquely complex. In practice, however, some of the provisions established for the passing of primary legislation on a day-to-day basis may prove to be unnecessarily convoluted for the operation of efficient government.
In contrast to the detailed requirements specified for the making of laws— also known as Acts—Northern Ireland delegated legislation, generally referred to in Northern Ireland as "statutory rules" rather than "statutory instruments", scarcely merits a mention. I wonder whether that is indicative of a widespread approach to that important area of law.
Nevertheless, the Assembly has set out in its Standing Orders how the scrutiny of statutory rules will operate. It may be thought a little cumbersome, but I am glad that it is intended to appoint an officer of the Assembly to be known as an Examiner of Statutory Rules. Such a position has been filled, almost without interruption, since the 1974 power-sharing Executive collapsed. His microscopic inspection of delegated legislation has been a striking

1247
feature under Direct Rule—something much appreciated by many Members of both Houses, most notably the late Member for Down South, the right honourable Enoch Powell—but perhaps not always by the civil servants, who were subject on occasions to the well-deserved strictures of the examiner. This field of delegated legislation will be an interesting one to watch, especially in the light of the constitutional developments in Scotland and Wales as well as Northern Ireland.
This Chamber represents a Long tradition in providing checks and balances in the legislative process. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is to be congratulated on his recent expression of views on the need for change over the control of secondary legislation. We shall watch developments in all four corners of the kingdom.
Before speaking today, I was advised that a maiden speech should be non—controversial, brief and humorous three characteristics for which a dour Ulster Presbyterian is not well known. I trust that I have given due, respect to the tradition of non-controversy. Short of telling an Irish joke, I do not see how I might have been humorous. However, looking at the clock, I see that at least I have been brief.
9.19 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. So far as I can remember, the last debate that we conducted took place under very different circumstances. There was much liquid refreshment around, although I suspect that the noble Lord was not as enthusiastic a participant in that part of the proceedings as I was. I should like to pay a heartfelt tribute to the admirable speech, if I may be impertinent, that he has just delivered with his usual courage and originality. The noble Lord has broadened our perception of the subject under discussion. I also pay tribute to the outstanding part that he has played in the affairs of the Province not only in the past few months but for many years. We are privileged to have him as a Member of our House and greatly look forward to his future contributions, confident that they will be up to the high standard that he has set for us all during the course of this evening's debate.
I also express appreciation to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for his initiative in raising this matter this evening. I particularly enjoyed his version of Dunning's motion which is very appropriate to the matter that we are debating this evening. As my noble friend pointed out, there is a great deal of secondary legislation about. I doubt whether that phenomenon will be reversed. Like my noble friend, I suspect, I have no inherent objection in principle to this. Those of us who have had anything to do with government or the management of its business recognise that often logic, convenience and the sensible arrangement of legislative powers favour the granting of substantial delegated powers in a Bill. However, as my noble friend observed, governments of all stamps are prone
1248
to be tempted to introduce rather more skeleton Bills than certainly those who find themselves in opposition would approve.
The exception to the principle is the Henry VIII clause. I say to the noble and learned Lord who is to reply this evening that I am glad that the Government have adopted almost slavishly the example that I for one tried to set when we on these Benches sat on the other side of the Chamber; namely, to follow very closely the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee (as it then was) as a defence against excessive delegated powers and Henry VIII clauses in primary legislation.
This is not a new subject for debate in your Lordships' House. I well remember some years ago replying on behalf of the then government—I have a sneaking suspicion that the noble and learned Lord will refer to this—in a debate initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, well supported by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in which it was asserted that this House retain its unfettered powers to reject delegated legislation. I did not quarrel with that assertion. I suggested, nevertheless, that it would be a good idea that any change that occurred should not lead to undesirable gridlock, and I adhere to that principle. But I worried then as now—as a member of the government it was more difficult to do so as openly as I would have liked—about the lack of any mechanism for greater scrutiny of the powers that all governments seek through delegated legislation. In this House we can only reject it if we break the convention established as recently as 1968. We can do no more to amend such legislation. I believe that this state of affairs gives the executive very substantial powers without the need for it to subject itself in practical terms to any detailed scrutiny. We cannot amend orders.
This is a substantial subject which we do not have time to examine in detail this evening. I close merely by asking the Government whether when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply they will give an undertaking that at the least they will try to establish a mechanism, perhaps through the usual channels and with the involvement of another place, by which this lacuna in our legislative arrangements may be filled. If the noble and learned Lord were able to give that clear undertaking, he might also be able to find time, again through the usual channels, for this House to give greater attention to the establishment of such a mechanism between both Houses of Parliament and how we should go about it, and for a debate on the Floor of the House, perhaps in government time.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, one addresses a thin House, about 20 Members—not even a quorum— at the end of the day on a matter of vital concern to this House. It is my privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Cranborne, whose speech on the hallmark debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, asserted the entitlement to accept or reject, approved the convention not to make an outright

1249
challenge and warned against the exercise of crude power which could result in stalemate without resolution.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, took the view that the right to reject should be exercised where subordinate legislation entrenches on policy or there is an unusual or unexpected use of delegated power such as attracted the attention of the Joint Select Committee or the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
At the outset, do we all not have to seek to distinguish between entitlement and the exercise of entitlement? Both derive from convention, as represented from time to time by Standing Orders and the Companion.A series of ad hoc arrangements as to the exercise may crystallise in convention which, in effect, abrogates an erstwhile entitlement. Is it not all a matter of broad consensus as to whether such has occurred?
The conventions of the old House were devised to ensure orderly government and the avoidance of stalemate when there was a massive Conservative/Whig position in this place in the way of opposition—a situation which does not exist today and is never likely to arise again. In these changed circumstances the new House must surely examine the conventions of the old House and develop new conventions relevant to the due discharge of our functions.
As a foot soldier in the debate, I propose to defer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, not knowing what he is going to say—such is my respect for him. This is not a political debate.
If we are to control abuse of executive power by resort to delegated legislation, the right to reject must be affirmed. Some new convention should be developed—in the form perhaps of a divisible Motion—to ask another place to relay the statutory instrument in some amended form which, if not so relaid, could be rejected. Is it not of cardinal importance to insert this right of rejection and to refute the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that convention introduced in the wake of the Rhodesian sanctions order—now on pages 187–8 of the Companion—abrogated the right to reject: and his contention that the critical amendment or Motion which by convention is not divisible and has absolutely no practical effect is, in his view and his contention on behalf of the Government, wholly acceptable? That must be rejected.
For if such a Motion were to be tabled, is it conceivable that another place would ever relay an amended version save on the personal intervention of the Leader of this House, as happened once in my presence to my own knowledge under the aegis of Lord Whitelaw, who summoned the Minister and told him that if he did not amend the regulation this House would reject it? How many Leaders of this House have that power of persuasion? I say that in the presence of more than one distinguished former Leader of the House.
1250
A new convention must be developed alongside "Critical Amendments and Motions" referred to on page 187 of the Companion to the Standing Orders which has no practical effect. Why? It is in order to afford some effective control over abuse of executive power. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledged on 3rd November, this is a matter for the House and it is master of its own procedures. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition may institute a full debate before such matter is ever referred to any Select Committee.
Surely any new form of divisible Motion proposing amendment must, as before, be qualified with guidelines as to restraint. The objective of this speech is not to engender confrontation with another place.
9.31 p.m
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for the opportunity to discuss the need to improve parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation. I speak in support of the Question, but I venture to develop a broader approach to the Question which has been anticipated in part by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, in his magnificent and moving maiden speech.
At the outset I am bound to pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee and their dedicated legal advisers. I recall my involvement for a number of years with the joint committee, and earlier this year I was privileged to become a member of the delegated powers committee. Nothing that I may say this evening detracts in any way from my admiration for their work. All the same, there are problems.
By now about 2,500 pieces of delegated legislation a year come before Parliament. They set out detailed provisions, often laying down precise conditions or restrictions which may be of secondary significance to Ministers. But for many people to whom they apply they are matters of great practical importance, of equal importance to the general policy embodied in the parent Act. But there are, and have been, complaints for a long time that the scrutiny of delegated legislation is inadequate. That concern has been expressed by many bodies including, for example, the TUC, the CBI, the National Consumer Council, local authorities, the Law Society and the Bar Council. A great deal of the report, Making the Law, published in 1992–93 by the Hansard Society commission on the legislative process relates to the problem. In paragraph 264, the report concluded that the scrutiny of delegated legislation in Parliament is inadequate and unsatisfactory, but it need not be.
Notwithstanding the report of the Hansard Society commission, it seems to me that the underlying problem has not changed all that much, if at all, since 1992, save for the contribution of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that committee is unable to comment on the substance of the order.

1251
There are in being two significant processes which were unknown in 1992. First, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced new consultative processes in respect of draft deregulation orders. Should anything be wrong with the draft deregulation order, there is a good chance of it being spotted in the course of widespread consultation and being dealt with before the instrument is finally settled.
Major instruments of delegated legislation are no less important than deregulation orders. I therefore believe that there is a strong case for introducing consultation processes similar to those under the deregulation Act 1994, but with adaptations, in respect of making delegated legislation especially for the major instruments. That raises the question of what is the criteria for deciding what is a major instrument, but I am sure that there can be enlightenment on that.
I turn to the second significant development, which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. The National Assembly for Wales has taken on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for making subordinate legislation in the devolved fields in Wales. The Assembly is without powers of primary legislation, but the examination and amendment of subordinate legislation is one of its important tasks. The scrutiny is entrusted to a subject committee whose members have a special interest in it. The committee may take evidence and amend the draft order. A very important feature of the procedure is that the Assembly Secretary must prepare a regulatory appraisal of the likely costs and benefits of complying with the draft order, unless in the circumstances it is inappropriate or not reasonably practicable.
In paragraph 369 of the Hansard Society commission report, there is a suggestion that the commission favours a legislative role for the departmentally related Select Committees. I believe that something along those lines cannot today be easily dismissed as a far-fetched fantasy as it is now happening in the National Assembly for Wales.
That brings me naturally to my final point. It may be that our hopes in Wales may be misconceived, but I believe that, as the Welsh Assembly is without power to make primary legislation, there will over time be a demand for more matters to be transferred to subordinate legislation to be scrutinised by the Assembly and amended if need be if the full benefits of the devolution settlement are to be realised.
Given that pressure, and the pressure in England for more detail to be transferred to delegated legislation, there is another reason for believing that the problem identified by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, cannot remain unaddressed indefinitely by Westminster.
This short debate has been an opportunity for us to put forward views to which I hope the Government will listen and I hope that we shall learn their views.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, which gave us tremendous food for thought. I also welcome this debate on an important
1252
topic and congratulate my noble friend on initiating it. As he said, delegated legislation has been with us for a long time. The principle of lawmakers delegating rule making has a somewhat more ancient lineage than he suggested. It is mentioned by Plato in The Laws and in this country it dates back to Tudor times. The Statute of Sewers of 1531 is offered as the first significant example of enabling legislation. However, the introduction of procedure to regulate the making of such legislation is a 19th century phenomenon. It is only in the present century—which, I might add, still has just over a year to go— that some form of systematic parliamentary scrutiny has been established.
The problem, which has been touched on, is that the scrutiny has not kept pace with the sheer volume of delegated legislation. The number of statutory instruments has increased by 50 per cent over the past 25 years. In some years, statutory instruments cover more than 9,000 pages. John Garrett, when he was a distinguished Labour Member of another place, wrote that,
"the use of delegated legislation on the scale we see today is clearly an abuse of Parliament".
The Joint Committee and the Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments have variously reported on the difficulties faced in ensuring effective scrutiny. The need to strengthen scrutiny of statutory instruments is overwhelming, and is widely recognised as such. That need is not confined to your Lordships' House. It involves both Houses working in a complementary manner, as they do in the scrutiny of European legislation. I welcome greatly the fact that my noble friend's Question relates to parliamentary scrutiny and not simply to scrutiny by your Lordships' House.
There is a case for widening the scope of scrutiny by committee. The terms of reference of the Joint Committee are drawn fairly narrowly; a point which has already been touched on. There is a case for allowing the committee to consider whether statutory instruments are flawed other than on essentially technical or procedural grounds.
There is also a case for extending scrutiny by committee. In the other place, statutory instruments subject to affirmative resolution stand referred to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation. Why not make those committees sessional committees, similar to the European Standing Committees, and give them particular sectors to cover? That might ensure more structured and informed scrutiny; it may also encourage a little greater interest on the part of Members. So, too, might giving the committees power to make substantive recommendations, rather than simply debating a statutory instrument on a neutral Motion and then reporting that they have considered it. The present relationship in the other place between the Standing Committees and the Motion put to the House is untenable and needs to be addressed.
What of your Lordships' House? I turn to the two issues that are of particular concern and have been mentioned: should statutory instruments be amendable, and should the House exercise its power to

1253
annul delegated legislation? I realise that there are precedents for amending delegated legislation, but as the Procedure Committee in the other place noted in 1986, there are considerable procedural difficulties. I am, however, persuadable that statutory instruments should be amendable, and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has put forward a proposal, in his recent Politeia lecture, that merits serious consideration. Implementing his proposal may well enable this House to fulfil an important and constructive role, similar to that played in primary legislation. Having said that, I recognise that the scope for amending delegated legislation is quite narrow.
The power to say "aye" or "nay" to a statutory instrument is a power at the disposal of both Houses. My view is that your Lordships' House should be prepared, if necessary—I stress that word—to exercise that power. I do not say that because there is a new House. I took the same view when the old House existed. I have never understood— or rather, never accepted—the rationale underpinning the convention that this House does not divide on a Prayer to annul an instrument. The situation is not analogous to that covered by the Salisbury convention. I appreciate that delegated legislation is not subject to the Parliament Acts. However, secondary legislation is not the same as primary legislation, not least because secondary legislation is rarely, if ever, promised in a party's election manifesto and because if a statutory instrument is rejected, another instrument can be laid. As such, the treatment of delegated legislation by this House should be seen as analogous to its treatment of amendments to legislation rather than its treatment of the principle on Second Reading.
The House has previously resolved,
"That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration".
To exercise that freedom raises no great constitutional issues; it simply requires a department to take away a statutory instrument and, if necessary, come back with a better one. A self-denying ordinance on the part of the House might kick in at a later stage, or, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde suggested, the proposal could be embodied in primary legislation and hence be subject to passage under the Parliament Acts. However, having said that, I recognise that the use of a vote is a blunt, negative weapon. As has already been suggested, I believe that we should be looking at constructive ways of carrying out scrutiny.
Given that, I want to end with a suggestion. This is a subject which lends itself to consideration by an ad hoc committee of your Lordships' House. A committee could assess the scale of the problem and recommend the most appropriate procedures for this House to adopt. Such an inquiry could encompass not only the scrutiny of statutory instruments but also the failure in some cases to bring in orders, not least some commencement orders. There is a great deal to be considered.
This House has the membership that allows statutory instruments to be subject to informed scrutiny, and I see no reason why the House should not
1254
play to its strengths. I believe that the Government, for their part, should welcome any steps which will serve to improve the quality of legislation in this country.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, for introducing a Question which is both important and timely. I also pay tribute to two other noble Lords: first, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. A debate on regulations without him is, indeed, like Hamlet without the prince. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Simon, a full and happy recovery and look forward to seeing the noble and learned Lord in his place when this subject next arises.
The other noble to whom I owe thanks is Lord Rippon of Hexham, who guided my first faltering steps in this subject and who taught me the importance of distinguishing form from substance and of preserving discussions on procedure from what the 18th century used to call "the rage of party". He is, of course, the spiritual father of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, has been such a distinguished member. The House is in his debt.
The law is made by both Houses, though not by both Houses in an equal capacity. That means that there must be an input from both Houses in the making of law which creates any controversy. While I have been here, I have observed a change in the matters brought forward by regulation towards the bringing forward of more and more high level, controversial matters to be brought in by regulation. I shall not list them. This is a not a party debate and it is not my purpose to start a party argument.
However, a number of them are measures which we have committed ourselves to repeal in successive election manifestos. Surely it is absurd that a measure should be important enough for us to commit ourselves in an election manifesto to repeal it and yet we should be quite unable to take any vote about it in the course of its passage through this House. That is a situation which must change. I cannot help thinking that the change to bring in more dramatic measures by regulation and the increasing readiness to challenge regulation are two processes which are interdependent, as, indeed, logically they should be.
Since the debate of 20th October 1994 when this House resolved its unfettered freedom to vote against subordinate legislation, we on these Benches have done so three times: once on the Port of Ipswich privatisation regulations—a Division called by my noble friend Lord Avebury; and twice on single parent regulations— just to be impartial, one from the Conservative Benches and one from the Labour Benches, both done by myself.
Therefore, as far as we on these Benches are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, is asking us to continue what is already our existing practice. That is something we are quite ready to do. Of course, we accept that that would involve the extension of the Parliament Acts to cover regulation. I

1255
imagine that we would wish not to vote down a regulation on a matter which is covered by the Salisbury convention. But I believe that amendment is more congenial to the spirit of this House than rejection. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is of course right that in normal circumstances a regulation is unamendable. But, of course, nothing is ever quite that simple.
Under the Government of India Act, the Census Act and one or two others, there is a procedure which allows Parliament to pass amendable regulations. If the noble Viscount cares to look at the Committee and Report stages of the student loans Bill 1990, he will find I once had the good fortune to carry an amendment to that effect by the princely majority of one vote. But it is the proverbial "enough" and it caused considerable surprise when it went to another place. That precedent can be considered again.
I listened with care and interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Prys -Davies, said about the deregulation procedure and also to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. There is a procedure available which achieves what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was asking for, and by sheer coincidence, if your Lordships look at the Official Report of 20th October 1994, you will find that I moved such a Motion immediately at the conclusion of the debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. It is a Motion which asks that the regulations be not proceeded with. I was advised by the Table that that was a fatal Motion. The Motion goes on to ask the Government to "lay amended regulations", leaving out this, that and the other, changing whichever point it is necessary to change.
Looking again at the Motion which I moved on that occasion, it lays out almost exactly what this Government have since done, but it took the intervention of the European Court of Justice to achieve that. I prefer remedies to be rather nearer to hand.
For any of that to work, as the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Prys-Davies, have been saying, there must be give and take. For my part, I am very happy to take part in give and take. But it takes two to tango. Until the Government realise that they cannot always have their own way, there is no chance of give and take.
The Government should reflect on how lucky they are. Other primary legislative chambers have to cope with an elected senate and a written constitution and are far more restrained than this one ever is. So if the Government can go a little way, then we can compromise. If not, the noble and learned Lord knows what it is that concentrates the mind wonderfully.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will support what most of us in this House regard as the very modest proposals put forward by my noble friend. Moreover, I hope that he will be prepared to give us the Government's opinion on the
1256
moral issue in advance of the Wakeham Commission and any decision of the Joint Committee of both Houses.
The fact is that all of us speaking in the debate tonight are enormously and genuinely worried about the power which the British executive possesses. It could be argued, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already hinted at, that it is one of the most powerful executives in the modern world. No checks are provided by a written constitution nor by a system of separation of powers nor by the chance of history. The continental parties tend to fragment. The fact is that the main basis for the power of the executive which the Minister represents is the great power and strength of the British political party. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give attention to that fact which lies behind the debate this evening and which will, I am sure, lie behind many debates in the future.
Since 1945 few rebels against their parties have managed to secure re-election. Over the past decade or recently, most parties—my own included—have increased central control over candidates. Further, there is the growing professionalism of politics to which the noble and learned Lord must give attention in the nature of the democratic process. That is quite simply that young men and women leaving university with a good degree join a think tank; become a special adviser; and then, strange to say, they get a constituency. That has meant that since 1945 many are reluctant to rebel. If electoral disaster strikes, we all know, in this House and elsewhere, that their best chance of securing a job outside politics must be enhanced by securing ministerial office.
The noble Lord must address the fact that the executive, relying on loyalty and discipline, can usually secure, as it has over the past two or three decades, all that it wants. That is especially true when the party has a large majority as the party opposite has known in the 1980s and as we are experiencing today.
One advantage most of us in this House possess — dare I suggest, the noble Lord included with a large income in another walk of life—is our independence. We are nominated for life. As one noble Lord said in this House: there is nothing that the executive can give us that we want and there is nothing we possess that the executive can take away. Thus, paradoxically, against the principles of democracy, this House is able to give more detailed attention and care to delegated powers than is the case in the elected Chamber. I hope that the noble Lord will not speak of democratic accountability without at least making a nod in the direction of what produces democratic accountability, which is a party label hung round one's neck. He knows as well as I how that label gets round one's neck.
I am sure that all of us in this House will agree that over the past few decades— I would go further and agree with my noble friend Lord Norton and say since the 1880s, and particularly because of two world wars— there has been too massive a growth in delegated powers being given to Secretaries of State. When I was on the Front Bench, for example, many of the crucial details of the implementation of the new

1257
powers in the Education Act, matters such as those mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which were the subject of party manifestos, were subject to delegated powers from the Secretary of State.
Surely it could only assist good government if this House was able to secure alterations and improvements in these orders either by negotiation or, ultimately, threat of rejection. There is only one body in this House that has such powers and it is relatively unknown. I refer to the Ecclesiastical Committee. The powerful Church, the prelates, propose to take away powers from the church wardens. The Ecclesiastical Committee, which only has powers of rejection, not amendment, said, "We'll reject". Amazingly, they then proposed amendments. We could do that. The power of rejection, even on a powerful executive, is amazing.
It would be a great inconvenience to the executive but in the end, dare I suggest, it would secure good government and more effective legislation. However, I would ask that we do not use the words "democratic accountability" without party control.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I believe that it was Andy Warhol who said that the world is run by people who turn up. It therefore grieves me to note that the only Government Back-Bencher to feel that the debate is worthy of vocal attention is the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who was a former colleague of mine on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
There is no doubt from this debate and, indeed, previous debates, that over recent years, secondary legislation has become a major legislative tool of all governments, often sketchily reviewed by Parliament as a whole. This is not to decry the work of the Joint Committee on which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and I had the honour of serving and, in my case, currently serve. The job of that committee is to inform Members of both Houses, first, of what statutory instruments exist and which ones have had points taken by the committee which, of course, are only within the committee's terms of reference. To paraphrase, these are when they impose charges on the public revenues; exclude the original Act from challenge in the courts; are retrospective; have a delay in the publication or laying or when they come into operation before they are laid; where they are doubtfully intra vires; and where they suffer from unclear and defective drafting.
The Joint Committee is therefore barred from discussing policy. I have lost count over the years of the times I have raised what I regard as perfectly good points, and been told by successive chairmen and legal advisers, "That is policy". That is the nub of the problem. Unless statutory instruments have to be debated, as in the case of affirmative instruments, or—and this is erratic—a debate depends on a Member of either House picking up a negative instrument and tabling a Motion to discuss it, they go by default.
In a word, it is "chancy". If one is quick off the mark, one can table a Prayer, which in this House the Government must find time for within 40 days;
1258
otherwise we have to resort to the sort of device used in the past by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; that of a Petition to withdraw and there is no copper-bottomed guarantee that it will be debated at all. That must be bad for democracy and my noble friend Lord Dean is quite right; something must be done.
Affirmative instruments do not really fare much better. Over the years, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, reminded us the other day, in this House the practice of not dividing has become an accepted one. The noble and learned Lord called it a "constitutional convention"; but it is not. It is a custom of the House and, as such, is not inviolable. Customs can, after all, be changed. Back-Benchers in particular have always retained the right to divide and one day I have no doubt that they will. The fact that they have not done so since 1968 is neither here nor there. So I am not in the least worried about affirmatives. The mechanisms are in place.
However, the negatives are a totally different matter; and I see two mischiefs. As I have said, the first is that a mechanism must be found off the Floor of the House, otherwise too much Chamber time is taken up to debate the policy out of the current Praying time. I must confess that I am not attracted by the idea that this House should pass a Motion requesting another place to amend, however temporarily, a statutory instrument. As I said the other day, it would delay the implementation of the whole order, even the bits that this House decided were acceptable, and place the legislation in limbo. I do not see that that would be to anyone's advantage.
I can even see a time when your Lordships could delay the commencement of an Act of Parliament, which is often done by negative resolution order. It would swing the powers too much in the favour of the Opposition and Back-Benchers and no government could allow that. What any government should consider is one of two things; either to allow the Joint Committee to consider matters of policy and report them to the House, on which there could, if Members took the point, be an effective delaying Motion of, say, one month, unless countermanded by another place; or they could set up a Select Committee of this House to advise on policy along the lines of the oft-mentioned Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. It would not have to meet very often, perhaps only when the JCSI minuted that a Member asked a question which was vetoed as a policy matter; or perhaps at the request of a forum of Members. That would be for future discussion and decision.
Another thought occurs to me. There have been times in the past and no doubt will be again when the reports of the Joint Committee are delayed. That cuts into Praying time and can, in extreme circumstances, mean that Praying time is totally used up before noble Lords are informed of the committee's discussion. In those cases, a Prayer is totally valueless and there is, as I said, no pressure on government to find time for a slightly more general debate. Instead of, as currently happens, Praying time running from the time an order is laid, why cannot it run for a shorter period; for example, from the date of the JCSI reports?

1259
Alternatively, what is so magic about 40 days? Why not 50 days or 60 days? Why not 40 sitting days which would be very logical and acceptable to everyone?
None of those suggestions would affect the paramountcy of another place, which—I agree with those noble Lords who have spoken-is very important. One of my son's more critical remarks is, "Dad, get real!" Well, I, for one, think that I have done so.
10.5 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by adding my congratulations and thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, not only on tabling this debate but also on his service to the committee, which I understand to have been a most distinguished and wise one. We are all extremely grateful to him for giving us this opportunity to debate the matter. I should also like to add a few words of great appreciation as regards the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. He has joined us after an extremely important and significant experience in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the noble Lord has lived through more change in the past week than the rest of us have done in most of our lifetimes. I am sure that he will bring to this House a great deal of knowledge based upon that experience which will enlighten our debates.
The fact that I am participating in this debate is perhaps rather surprising as I am not a lawyer, nor, indeed, any kind of expert on procedure. I am driven by just two things, both of which I should like to mention. Then, at the end of my remarks, I should like to draw together some questions for the Minister. I am driven partly by the concern which I have felt in the past few months, and which I felt in a similar way under the previous Conservative administration, about the extent to which legislation now coming before this House is amended very late indeed in the legislative process. This is not an aspect of change and procedure that we have so far discussed.
Frankly, when major amendments embodying delegated legislation and major powers for regulation are brought in at such a late stage in a Bill's proceedings that neither the Committee stage nor in some cases even the Report stage enable us properly to scrutinise and debate the legislation, one can only say that the whole function of the legislature in our system is beginning to be seriously undermined. I do not believe that this is because of the ill will of either this Government or their predecessor. It flows from an extraordinary desire on the part of governments to legislate more and more; and often to do so on the basis of having been given the go-ahead by the legislation committee, as a sub-committee of Cabinet, without the departments concerned being adequately prepared to bring forward a properly thought-through Bill.
I say that with no political desire to embarrass anyone. It is a process that we have all seen becoming cumulative. But, frankly, it frightens me. We are not
1260
serving our citizens well. More and more legislation is reaching the statute book that is simply disgraceful in terms of its drafting, clarity and adequacy.
With regard to procedure, we have the further difficulty in this House of the long-understood conventions that restrain the contributions that one can make both on Report and on Third Reading. Indeed, they now literally stand in the way of our proper discussion of such matters. That is an issue which this House must now address.
I turn to the remark made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He, like my noble friend Lord Russell, deserves the great thanks of this House for his continual dedication to the quest ion of how to make democracy work in respect of secondary legislation. When this matter was previously discussed at length in October 1994, the noble and learned Lord remarked:
"The other place seems to be increasingly under the hand of the Executive". —[Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 358.]
He said that in 1994 when a different government were in power. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, made a similar point today.
I simply want to add two further points. Unquestionably, the Cabinet, as a collective area of responsibility, has weakened over the past 20 years. It is not, frankly, the power that it once was; and Cabinet committees are increasingly weak or replaced by ad hoc committees that do not have the same influence that Cabinet committees once had. I speak with at least a little knowledge of this matter having spent six years in the Cabinet and having seen this process begun and carried forward under successive governments.
Today we have something approaching the beginnings of a presidential system. I believe that is largely driven by demands in the media to be able to point to one leader as in some way symbolic of the whole position of a government. However, we do not have a presidential system in the United Kingdom and we have none of the checks and balances that a presidential system such as that of the United States works within, sometimes to the extent that much of its legislation is nullified by a process of gridlock.
We are at the other end of the spectrum, with an extraordinarily powerful executive and a relatively weak legislature. That brings me to my final point. In the few years that I have spent in this House I have come to appreciate the extraordinary importance of the Select Committee on delegated legislation. I believe that it is now one of the least understood pillars of our democracy. Its role is of great importance. I have three questions for the noble and learned Lord, whose considerable intelligence should be brought to bear on this matter.
First, what view does he take of the proposal that the committee should have the right to propose the amendment or even the annulment of secondary legislation? Secondly, should there be any system of scrutiny to question statements made by Ministers about the compatibility of legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights, because I

1261
am dubious about the extent to which we can rest upon a simple statement? Thirdly, in his view do we not now need extensive powers, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, to look at the relationship between legislation passed by devolved bodies and the situation and standing of the legislature at Westminster? I hope that he will address those questions which I believe are of vital importance to the life of our democracy.
10.11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as is witnessed by the number of noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, this has been an interesting and timely debate. We are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree for introducing it.
I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to the House. I thank him for his maiden speech. He obviously comes to us with an important background in industrial affairs in Northern Ireland and of course also in political affairs. He said that he had been advised to be brief, uncontroversial and humorous—something of a problem for a dour Ulster Presbyterian. As a dour Scottish Presbyterian, I am seldom brief—although I shall be this evening—I am never uncontroversial, but I always try to be humorous!
The convention with regard to secondary legislation has existed only as between the Front Benches of the major parties in this House; that is, the Conservative and Labour Parties. It is fair to say that the Liberal Democrat Benches, especially as represented by the noble Earl, and the Cross Benches, have never accepted it. Indeed on a number of occasions the noble Earl, Lord Russell, used his ingenuity to get round the convention. I believe that, in a debate introduced by the noble Earl some five or six years ago, the House passed a resolution. The resolution appears at page 182 in the Companion to the Standing Orders,
"this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration".
I do not believe that I am giving away a secret when I say—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful but I really must not claim credit which is not due to me. That was a Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I stand corrected. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has always pursued this matter with vigour. When I was a government Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rose to speak, I always paid close attention to what he said and, at best, quickly agreed to take away and study whatever point he was attempting to make, as the chances were that he was probably correct and my brief was probably wrong.
My point was that the Companion makes it clear that there is an unfettered freedom to vote, and that is important. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, used his
1262
ingenuity to tempt the party opposite, when it was in opposition, to join the Liberal Democrats in the Lobbies. I have no doubt that he will attempt to tempt us to join him in the Lobbies. I am sure that the noble Earl will welcome the idea that we may be tempted. The passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 has changed things in quite a dramatic manner. Even the Government accept that. In the November edition of the Parliamentary Monitor, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had this to say. As an aside, I am surprised that neither the noble Baroness, as the Leader of the House, nor her deputy, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is replying. After all, this is about the business of the procedures of the House. With all due respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, with whom I enjoy exchanging comments, it has nothing to do with the Cabinet Office, which is concerned with getting through Government business and not with the procedures of your Lordships' House or with the Dome. I do not believe that the Dome yet has responsibility for the procedures of your Lordships' House.
I return to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. She said that the House,
"will be able to speak with more authority … A decision by the House not to support a proposal from the Government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account".
I am in complete agreement with what I will call the Jay convention.
So how do we hold the Government to account and do so better? We believe, as I have said, that the Front Bench convention that we should never vote on secondary legislation is now at an end in the new House. How we deal with secondary legislation in the future must be subject to discussions within the House so that we can in fact subject secondary legislation to proper scrutiny.
I am currently involved in considering the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. It is a measure that we all agree on. It is quite short, with 12 clauses and nine pages. But the meat of the Bill is in the regulations, which run to 21 pages. So if I wanted to pray against the regulations I could not amend any part of the detail. Yet because I have the draft regulations to hand—I am grateful for that— I could table an amendment putting the draft regulations in as a schedule to the Bill and then proceed to amend them. That is rather complex and I do not believe that that is the right way to go about it.
To use the words of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, it would not be wise to better hold the Executive to account only by accepting or rejecting an order in its entirety. Surely it would be much much wiser to seek a new procedure by which we could also amend secondary legislation, thus giving the Government the opportunity to take on board the amendment and get their secondary legislation. Again, to repeat the Leader's words,
"the Executive will be held better to account.

1263
As regards secondary legislation I believe that that is what we should do in future.
10.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. in giving the House through this Unstarred Question the opportunity to debate what I believe to be a very important issue. Perhaps I may also join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, on his maiden speech. It was very impressive. I believe that the House will greatly benefit from his knowledge of affairs in Ulster and that it will undoubtedly benefit from his great courage in putting forward his views. I welcome him as warmly as possible to this House. I also join with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in expressing my deep personal regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in his place today. All noble Lords would acknowledge his great personal experience and his clarity in relation to these issues.
Perhaps I may start my reply by setting out what I believe the present position to be. It is important that the Government should set out clearly what they say is the position. Before the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 I think it would be generally accepted, pace the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that there was a convention that the House would not by means of any effective Motion reject secondary legislation. I say that accepting, of course, that in theory the House had the power to vote down such secondary legislation, just indeed as it has the power to vote down at Second Reading primary legislation, even though voting down such primary legislation would be in breach of what has come to be known as the Salisbury/Addison Convention. The fact that in both cases the House has the power does not mean that there is not a constitutional convention which, in effect, involves the House in accepting that it will not use that power.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord remembers, but the power to vote down a Bill at Second Reading was last used as recently as January of this year. I do not believe that the Government were very angry.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, all noble Lords are aware of the circumstances under which that occurred. In some respects that led to a speedy resolution of what might otherwise have been a tricky problem. Equally, I do not believe that any noble Lord in the Chamber tonight or in the House of Lords would regard the position as being wrongly expressed if I said that the Salisbury convention, although it does not detract from the power of the House to vote down Bills at Second Reading, is a convention that the House respects. Furthermore, it reflects the view of Dicey in The Law of the Constitution, which states:
"The general rule that the House of Lords must in matters of legislation ultimately give way to the House of Commons is one of the best-established maxims of modern constitutional ethics".
1264
I believe that all noble Lords would accept that what the then Viscount Cranborne and Viscount Addison were reflecting was the acceptance by the House of Lords of the primacy of the House of Commons.
The then Viscount Cranborne set out the approach of the Conservative Opposition in the Lords in 1945 when establishing the basis of the doctrine by saying that:
"Whatever our personal views, we should frankly recognize that these proposals were put before the country at the recent General Election and that the people of this country, with full knowledge of these proposals, returned a Labour Party to power. The Government may, therefore, I think, fairly claim that they have a mandate to introduce these proposals". — [Official Report, 16/8/1945; col. 47.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord for intervening. The noble and learned Lord referred to Dicey. Dicey was concerned with the position in the old House. The noble and learned Lord accepts that this is a matter of broad consensus and that what happened as a matter of broad consensus in the old House must be reconsidered and re-examined by the new House. Surely the noble and learned Lord would concede that these are now totally changed circumstances.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was analysing the position by setting out the circumstances before the House of Lords Act 1999, and asking whether the Act will change those circumstances. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that, because there is no longer a Conservative hegemony in this House, that somehow changes the basis of the Salisbury convention and, presumably, the convention in relation to delegated legislation. With great respect, that does not for one moment repay examination.
The then Viscount Cranborne set out the reason for the Salisbury convention as being the democratic will of the people having been expressed. It would be wrong for this House to reject that democratic will. What possible difference could it make that the will of the people was rejected by the Conservatives or the Labour Party in this House, or a combination of any other parties? With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, there is absolutely no logic whatsoever in his position.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, there is no logic in that reply. If an Opposition in this place—be they Conservative, Whig or whatever— have an effective voting majority, there is no substratum for the Salisbury convention.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. with the greatest respect, that does not answer the point. The point which the then Viscount Cranborne was putting forward was that we should not reject the will of the people. It does not seem to me to matter whether a Conservative majority, a coalition majority or a Labour majority rejects it. Therefore. with respect, the noble Lord's point does not change one jot the basis of that convention.

1265
The basis of the delegated legislation convention must be the same; indeed, even more strongly so. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepted in his speech, there is plainly no power under the Parliament Act, as there is in relation to primary legislation, to force delegated legislation through. So there is a conundrum. Should this House reject delegated legislation, whether because it wants it amended but is forced to reject it or on some other basis, the consequence is that this House defeats for ever, if it wants, the purpose of the views of the House of Commons. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepted that that could not be the case. He said that there would have to be an amendment to the Parliament Act. That being the case, it would appear to be accepted, at least by the noble Earl, that one cannot move at this stage to a position that we break with the convention that the House can defeat secondary legislation.
That brings us to this point. There is a convention that this House should not take on the elected Chamber. It exists in relation to primary legislation of the kind described in the Salisbury convention. It exists equally in relation to secondary legislation, as, in effect, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, accepted. Before we break with that convention we would need to make a number of changes.
What is at the heart of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, is that we should refer the question of what to do about delegated legislation to the Liaison Committee, or an ad hoc procedure committee, or whatever the appropriate committee might be. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that does not seem to be sensible when the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has been appointed chairman of a Royal Commission tasked in part with considering what should be done in relation to this House and delegated legislation. What is more, that commission has received evidence from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee as to what should be done. I can think of nothing less sensible than this House expressing views in relation to that matter before it has heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may tempt him a little further. If the Royal Commission were to suggest that there should be some changes, would the Government then be prepared to have the House consider the matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the appropriate course is that the report of the Royal Commission should be published, a joint committee should be set up and then the House must consider what is the best method by which the House debates the contents of the commission's report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, says or does not say may
1266
be interesting. But does the noble and learned Lord accept that this House is the master of its own procedures? It is for us, not for Wakeham.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I respectfully submit that the right approach is for this House to wait for the report from the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. He is seeking to see the role of this House in a wider context rather than simply what the House believes is the right position in relation to its powers. One of the important powers of this House is in relation to delegated legislation. Rather than asserting that the House is master of its own procedure come what may, it may be more prudent to wait for the findings of the Royal Commission. That sets out the basic position.
During the course of the debate there has been a suggestion that the convention does not exist. Even the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his acceptance of the need for an amendment to the Parliament Act, acknowledges that there is something there.
As one would expect, the most eloquent description of the convention came from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in the debate introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in 1994. Much reliance has been placed on the Motion that was passed then; namely,
"That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration".
The noble Viscount immediately agreed that that was the case. He went on to say:
"As noble Lords know better than I, this House has very broad powers: indeed there are very few formal constraints. The manner in which the House chooses to exercise such powers is crucial. We all know that the proceedings of the House depend in large part on a foundation of agreement as to what is and what is not an appropriate course to pursue. The House could not function so effectively without such consensus—that is, without general agreement to observe the various conventions which regulate our activities". — [Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 360.]
He said later in the same speech, at col. 361,
"One such convention is certainly what we arc discussing today; namely, that although noble Lords have the right to do so, they do not vote directly on subordinate legislation".
That is the basis on which the noble Viscount indicated that the then Conservative government would not oppose the Motion introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Viscount indicated that we accept the Motion, but on the basis that there is a convention that says that we do not vote against subsidiary legislation.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am conscious of the time, and was therefore biting my tongue, as I have been throughout the noble and learned Lord's speech. As he has deliberately trailed his coat, I wonder whether he will accept that there is widespread concern, increasingly widely expressed, about the volume of secondary legislation coming from governments of both parties over the past decade or so in particular. Does he further accept that any government would be unwise not to take account of that concern and at least make a nod in the direction of it by agreeing that the matter deserves consideration—particularly since it is at least conceivable, in spite of

1267
what the Government have repeatedly said, that another place might not feel disposed to accept the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Wakeham and that, therefore, the transitional House may last rather longer than even he or I might like?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is a great volume of secondary legislation. Another place is considering, through various committees, the most effective way to deal with it. What is clear, both from the content of speeches in this debate and from what I am saying, is that there is effectively a convention that we should not reject secondary legislation in this House. There is broad acceptance of that. The reason is that it is not right to reject the views of the other place. We are wrong at this stage to seek to break with that convention. We must wait for the findings of the Royal Commission. There are separate issues about how the volume of secondary legislation is dealt with. I am glad to say that to some extent that matter is being addressed by the other place.
Like the noble Viscount, I am conscious of the time. Perhaps I may deal with some further points. First, the passage of the House of Lords Act 1999 does not change the position in relation to the convention. It does not make the House any more democratic than before. The House remains a nominated Chamber that should not take on the other place, as it were. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said that because people were members of political parties, those parties controlled too much of what went on in the other place. It is plain that a party label is very much a sine qua non to election to the other place, but that is a decision which has been made by the electorate for many years. There was a time when Members were more independent of parties. But it is up to the electorate whether it prefers people who represent particular parties.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, it is late and I apologise to noble Lords. I refer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, which the Royal Commission has never considered. I do not speak from her experience. The worry expressed from all sides, which I rather hoped the Minister would address, is about the nature of the change with which the noble Baroness was intimately concerned. I rise to my feet even at this late stage in the hope that the noble and learned Lord will comment on the noble Baroness's concern for the whole of democracy.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall do so in my third point. The noble Baroness expressed concern about the great weight of legislation, late amendments and the inadequate opportunity to consider until a late stage the detail of those amendments. Plainly, all governments would deprecate any process whereby the ability of both Houses to consider legislation was in any way limited. Whether there needs to be a change in the way that this House consider; legislation because of matters of that kind is one of the aspects that the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord
1268
Wakeham, will investigate. It is nothing to do with the 1999 Act or the fact that there is a lower Conservative majority than in the past. It would be wrong in those circumstances for noble Lords to make any change to the practices of this House until the results of the Royal Commission's recommendations are implemented.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I fully understand the noble and learned Lord's point about the need to see what the Royal Commission recommends. But I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can give an indication that in his view the checks and balances that now apply to the executive in the United Kingdom—I do not refer to a specific time or a specific government— have been considerably weakened over the years and that that issue may at some time be required to be addressed urgently.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, to ask whether I believe that overall the checks and balances are inadequate goes far beyond the scope of the Unstarred Question. We are talking about the extent to which this House should restore to itself the power to reject secondary legislation. I believe that at this stage the right course is to continue as we have in the past, wait to see what the Royal Commission recommends and then consider it. I believe that that is the sensible way to deal with it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise for further delaying the matter. It is at least conceivable that there may be some delay before the recommendations of the Royal Commission, whatever they may be, are implemented. During that time governments will continue to legislate in a way that has proved to be unacceptable to Members of this House. The noble and learned Lord takes a position rather like that of St Augustine:
"Give me chastity … but not yet".
Just in case some time elapses before the recommendations are implemented, will the noble and learned Lord give an undertaking that in that event he will depart from the principle that he has just set out and will be prepared to commit the Government at least to considering a mechanism within a short time after the publication of my noble friend's report?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the reason the House adopted particular conventions—in particular the convention about delegated legislation—was because it took the view—rightly—that it would be wrong to take on the other place. Before we decide what we should do about any of that, surely we should look to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. The opportunity will be given to debate the report of Lord Wakeham and his Royal Commission and then, in relation to that, we will decide the appropriate course.
It would be quite wrong for me to give the undertaking the noble Viscount seeks. We have not got to the stage where we have seen the Royal Commission report; we have not got to the stage where we know the Government's reaction to it; and we have not got to the

1269
stage where this House has had an opportunity to debate its findings. That must be of relevance when the Royal Commission report is to include a part relating to what it thinks the power and reaction of this House should be to delegated legislation.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I do apologise. I absolutely undertake that this will be my last intervention.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord has noticed that my noble friend's Unstarred Question refers not to this House but to Parliament as a whole. Delegated legislation passes through both Houses of Parliament. That the noble and learned Lord should rely for his defence of the status quo on the proposition that we should await the outcome of my noble friend's Royal Commission report seems to beg the question that the concerns affecting the passage of this huge volume of important legislation do not relate only to the convention as he has expressed it—which I do not wholly accept, but let us not get into that— but affect the passage of legislation from both Houses of Parliament. So far as I know, my noble friend's remit for his Royal Commission does not run as far as reform of another place as well as this one.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot understand why it is not possible to conceive of the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his Royal Commission have a view on how delegated legislation is dealt with in both Houses of Parliament. I cannot believe it is not possible to conceive of the possibility that, in expressing views about what this House should do, he might—I do not know—express his—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No. Let me just finish my response. My Lords, surely the sensible thing to do
1270
would be to wait to see what he does say about it. I cannot believe that, if he expresses views about how this House should deal with delegated legislation, it will not be in the context of looking at the whole parliamentary procedure.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister. This is my last intervention. I apologise. I want to know what is the Government's view at this moment. I think we are entitled to know. The Government are seeking to maintain the status quo. They are saying "Wait for Godot. Wait. Wait. Wait", for heaven knows how long. We do not know whether they will implement the recommendations. What is the Government's point of view?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I do not think that I could have expressed the Government's view with greater clarity than I have. We believe the position is that there exists a convention which means that this House should not vote down secondary legislation; we believe that the right course is for this House to continue to apply that convention until the Royal Commission reports.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Would it be fair to summarise his views— in words which I hope will not be unhelpful so far as concerns his relationship with the Prime Minister—by saying that the Government take an extraordinarily conservative view on this matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords. The Government take an extremely sensible view about the way forward at this particular moment. Clarity is very important in these matters.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Openness in the Public Sector: Report
  Openness in the Public Sector: Report
  Asylum Applications Backlog
  Asylum Applications Backlog
  Visiting Ministers, Haslar Prison
  Visiting Ministers, Haslar Prison
  Prisons: Visiting Ministers
  Prisons: Visiting Ministers
  Prison Act 1952 and Human Rights Act 1998
  Prison Act 1952 and Human Rights Act 1998
  Female Genital Mutilation: Prosecutions
  Female Genital Mutilation: Prosecutions
  Early Education Places for Three Year-olds
  Early Education Places for Three Year-olds
  Child Labour: ILO Convention
  Child Labour: ILO Convention
  Residential and Nursing Homes: Standards
  Residential and Nursing Homes: Standards
  Primary Care Trusts
  Primary Care Trusts
  Meat Hygiene Service Inspection Charges
  Meat Hygiene Service Inspection Charges
  Gulf War: Review of Nerve Agent Release at Khamisiyah
  Gulf War: Review of Nerve Agent Release at Khamisiyah
  Tourism Forum
  Tourism Forum
  Tourism and Disabled People
  Tourism and Disabled People
  Internet Travel Bookings
  Internet Travel Bookings
  Rail Freight Regulation
  Rail Freight Regulation
  Electricity from Renewables: Minister's Speech
  Electricity from Renewables: Minister's Speech