Sitting of 14 December 1999

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Tuesday 21 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Rail Services
    Mr. Russell Brown: When he last met representatives of train operating companies running rail services between Scotland and England. [101220]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I last met representatives of Great North Eastern Railway Ltd. on 19 November.
    Mr. Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for that short reply to a short question. Will he give me an undertaking that the much-needed modernisation of the west coast main line is a priority that will be stressed to Railtrack in Scotland? Will he also stress to Railtrack the need to ensure that there is adequate investment at railway stations, such as the one in Lockerbie, to meet the needs of disabled people?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are taking robust action, through the Rail Regulator, to deal with the situation to which he refers. The Rail Regulator announced on 5 November that he was taking enforcement action and demanding that Railtrack produce plans to meet its commitments for additional capacity as part of the upgrade and improvement of the west coast main line. The modernisation of that line will include remodelling schemes, resignalling, track and structure work and electrification, and is expected to cost some £2.2 billion.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that when the Strategic Rail Authority is established, it acknowledges that the east coast main line goes from London to Aberdeen, and not
    132
    from London to Edinburgh and then to Aberdeen? Will he undertake to support the campaign for full electrification of the entire length of the line?
    Dr. Reid: I use the east coast line—not only the part that goes to Glasgow and Edinburgh, but occasionally the part that goes to Aberdeen—so I certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman's views are taken into account. He will be pleased to know that when the Strategic Rail Authority is formed, it will, as promised by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, have a representative from Scotland, and I am sure that he or she will bear in mind the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

    Poverty Alleviation
    Mr. David Marshall: What discussions he has held with the Scottish Executive on UK-wide initiatives for the alleviation of poverty; and if he will make a statement. [101221]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Along with my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for Wales and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), I met Scottish Ministers and Ministers from the other devolved Administrations on 9 December to discuss the alleviation of poverty. That meeting, the first of its kind, is a real example of partnership in action.
    Mr. Marshall: I appreciate the Government's efforts in that respect, and I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Will he disregard the north-south divide and consider instead the east-west divide? Does he agree that statistics prove that most of the prosperity and well-being in Scotland is in the east of the country, and most of the poverty and poor health is in the west, especially in the city of Glasgow?
    Does my right hon. Friend further agree that while Glasgow may be a great place for tourists and for people who live outside the city, thus avoiding paying the city's council tax yet using all its amenities, it is now high time to make Glasgow once again great for all the good people who live in the city? Will he therefore do his utmost to ensure that the joint action Committee of both Parliaments gives a high priority to tackling the problems faced by the people of Glasgow?
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend. I have always considered Glasgow to be a great city, which of course does not mean that there are not areas of poverty—especially, as recent reports have pointed out, in my hon. Friend's constituency—that blight the city. Those areas are not exclusive to Glasgow; there are areas of poverty throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that Ministers will make every effort, particularly by working with Scottish Ministers, to deliver a better life.
    My hon. Friend will probably be aware that the report that produced the damning figures on Glasgow is some years old and it is a measure of the challenge that the Labour Government faced when we came to power. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that, under present projections for the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the

    133
    biggest ever increase in child benefit, we can expect that by 2002 some 60,000 children in Scotland will be lifted out of poverty, and many of those will be in Glasgow. That is the beginning of what will be a very long but vital effort by the Government and the Scottish Executive's working partnership to remove the scar of poverty from the face of Scotland.
    Sir Robert Smith: The Secretary of State will know from his surgeries, as will all hon. Members, how many people in poverty have difficulty accessing the benefits system and coping with its complexity, particularly because of recent cuts in the provision of advice centres. What discussions did he have at the ministerial meeting about how better advice and provision could be given to people, at a UK level and a Scotland level, to ensure that those in the worst poverty have access to all the benefits available to them?
    Dr. Reid: That is a feature of regular discussion between UK Ministers, and between us and our Scottish colleagues. It is one of the reasons why we introduced the hotline for the working families tax credit. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that will make a considerable contribution to the alleviation of poverty by guaranteeing a minimum income wage of £200 for any family with one member working. The last time that I checked, that hotline had received almost 40,000 inquiries from Scotland. It is a measure of our commitment to combat poverty and to deliver—not in theory, but in practice—real help where it is needed.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Given that the statistics of deprivation in Glasgow are so well known, what does my right hon. Friend make of an article by George Kerevan, a prominent nationalist, which was published in The Scotsman yesterday, in which he accuses Glasgow of whingeing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a typical example of nationalist hypocrisy, whereby in Glasgow nationalists present themselves as fighters for the poor, but in Edinburgh they accuse the poor of whingeing? How does that contrast with the Government's attempt to overcome poverty in Glasgow?
    Dr. Reid: I have had an opportunity to see that article by a member of the Scottish National party. To suggest that Glasgow is whingeing about a deep and disturbing problem of poverty is to cast a disgraceful slur on the people of Glasgow. Wherever co-operation in the effort to improve people's daily life is sought, the nationalists create discord. That the nationalists are more interested in getting Scotland out of the UK than in getting poverty out of Scotland has been well marked by the Scottish people.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State has met his Scottish counterparts to discuss the problem of poverty in Scotland, but I hope he will excuse my asking for clarification about what went on at that meeting. I assume that it was a meeting of the first joint ministerial committee: if so, what was its precise remit in respect of poverty? On the face of it, the allocation of funds from Scotland's block grant funding is a matter for the Scottish Executive—although representations made to the UK Government about changes to social security funding might be relevant. However, the impression that I derived
    134
    from listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) was that he hoped that the Secretary of State would lecture the Scottish Executive on how to go about their business. What was going on at that meeting?
    Dr. Reid: I know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to understand the concept of working with others, even within his own party, but we are quite capable of co-operating with others. If his question is about how we bring together various efforts to combat poverty, my answer is simple. The UK Government can, for example, restore free eye tests for old-age pensioners, which were removed by the Conservative Government; we can provide the biggest ever increase in child benefit; we can introduce a minimum guaranteed income for pensioners; we can introduce the working families tax credit, which benefits 140,000 Scots; and we can introduce the long-awaited and much-needed minimum wage. By implementing their policies on social exclusion, the Scottish Executive can target resources on areas such as those mentioned by my hon. Friends and, through the national health service, redistribute funds to the areas of greatest need. That is called building a broad consensus backed by co-operative effort, but I understand that almost none of those words are understood, either in theory or in practice, by the Conservatives.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: My right hon. Friend is aware of, and has already referred to, the report published on Thursday 2 December by the Townsend centre for international poverty research at the university of Bristol. He will also be aware that the statistical base of that research dated from 1991 to 1995 and that—contrary to the spin put on the report by the Scottish National party—it reveals not the failure of our Government's policies, but the extent of the problem that we inherited. If we are to address the problems and, in particular, achieve the target that we set in the pre-Budget report for reducing child poverty, we need to integrate public services, both devolved and reserved. Instead of making public services report on how they are doing that, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they actually do it?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is either incompetent or hypocritical of the Scottish National party to blame on a new Labour Government who have been in power for only two and a half years the poverty revealed in a report based on six-year-old statistics. Many areas of Scotland are deeply scarred by poverty, but I can confidently predict that, through the measures that I have described, 60,000 children will be lifted out of poverty and a major start will be made on a generation-long programme to end poverty in Scotland and the rest of the UK.
    As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I pledge that the efforts of both the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive will be harnessed to ensure that devolution is much more than a constitutional discussion, so that we get away from talking about processes and territorial claims over powers and move on to implementing what the Scottish people want, which is to deliver the means of them having a better life for themselves and their children.
    Mr. John Swinney: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government's continuation of the previous Conservative Government's spending targets, not for the first year of their term in office but for the second, means that they are responsible for prolonging the agony of people whose plight was highlighted by the report to which the Secretary of State has referred?
    Dr. Reid: If anyone on either side of the House thinks that the Conservative Government would have introduced the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the huge increase in child benefit, the restoration of free eye tests or a £100 bonus at Christmas for our old people, he or she does not understand the nature of politics in Britain—or prefers, for his or her own purposes, to disregard them.
    The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed the public expenditure figures issued yesterday, which were independently compiled. They show that people in Scotland receive, on average, 15 per cent. more per head than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is £120 per head as opposed to £104. The hon. Gentleman cannot stand Scotland playing a full part in the United Kingdom partnership, and the United Kingdom being shown to be fair and of benefit to the people of Scotland. Unfortunately for him and his party, both are true.

    European Elections
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What assessment he has made of the operation of the electoral system in Scotland for European parliamentary elections. [101222]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon Friend has made no such assessment. Responsibility for the system for European parliamentary elections lies with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is currently undertaking a review of this matter.
    Dr. Lewis: Is it not a shame that the Secretary of State has not assessed the implications of the proportional representation list system in European elections for Scotland arising from a recent development in England, namely, the resignation of Pauline Green, the former leader of the party of European socialists and Labour MEPs for London, to take a better paid job only six months after she stood for, and was elected to, the European Parliament under a Labour ticket? Is that not a weakness of the system, in that the electorate will have no chance to punish the Labour party in a by-election? The next candidate will take Buggins' turn and move up into the space vacated by the rather dishonourable tactics of the lady to whom I have referred.
    Mr. Wilson: I have no idea why the hon. Gentleman thinks that the resignation of Pauline Green is relevant to Scottish Question Time. [Interruption.] It may be that her mother was Scottish; I do not know. That is the only legitimacy that I can question. We assess or reassess electoral systems not on the basis of individual behaviour,
    136
    but on whether they are right for democracy in this country. That is a much better form of motivation and one that the Tories could not conceivably understand.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Speaking as a federalist and a supporter of electoral reform, may I say to my hon. Friend that a new electoral system was well understood by the people of Scotland, and that that was particularly true after the elections to the Scottish Parliament? I look forward to a referendum on proportional representation for this place. Does he agree that the whingeing from Opposition Members plays into the hands of the secessionists and day trippers in the Scottish National party?
    Mr. Wilson: As my hon. Friend opened his question with the words, "Speaking as a federalist", a brief reply is appropriate. Speaking as a representative of Her Majesty's Government, I can assure him that there will be no change in the electoral system to the House without a referendum. That is absolutely clear. With regard to the European system, it is worth pointing out, in the interests of balance, that under the first-past-the-post system, the by-election in the north-east of Scotland, which was the last test under that system, attracted a turnout of 20.5 per cent., which suggests that there was not exactly a lather of excitement there, either.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister admit that 20.5 per cent. is hardly an excuse for abolishing by-elections? Will he tell the Secretary of State, who has been uncharacteristically lugubrious this afternoon, to cheer himself up by going along to his colleague the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] Of course the Secretary of State knows what "lugubrious" means. Will he tell the Home Secretary that no true democrat can conceivably support a system where party comes before candidate, and that in Scotland, at least, people will have no truck with that?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not want to intervene in the dialogue between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend. On the subject of who is lugubrious, it takes one to know one. With reference to the first-past-the-post system and the constituency link, it is extremely important to maintain the link between constituency and Member of Parliament, as happened in Scotland in the case of the constituency-elected MSPs. There must and will be no change in elections to the House without the matter being put to the British people.

    EU Rebate
    Mr. Bill Tynan: What representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the benefit to Scotland of Britain's rebate from the European Union. [101223]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is conscious of the benefit that the UK generally, and Scotland in particular, derive from the

    137
    UK's abatement from the European Union. That is why its maintenance was successfully negotiated at the Berlin European Council in March 1999.
    Mr. Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for that short reply. On the positive aspects of our relationship with Europe, and the fact that Scotland as an exporting nation derives great benefit from it, does he agree that the employment aspects and the number of jobs protected in Scotland through that relationship are extremely important?
    Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. The agreement that has been negotiated on objective 2 by the United Kingdom will benefit large parts of his area. The agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister on the highlands and islands will benefit large parts of Scotland, which need that continuing support. On many fronts, we benefit from the European relationship and the funding. It is worth reminding the House—I see that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is about to stand up. She will remember that, in the European Parliament, the Scottish nationalists voted against the British rebate. In 1999, it is worth £2.8 billion to the UK, which is equivalent to £48 for every person in Scotland. That is what the nationalists voted against, which I suppose is why "Nats" is similar to "Santa" in reverse.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Leaving aside those points, the Minister and I recognise the complexities involved in the arrangements. When we speak about rebates, can we also speak about contributions, not least those made by Scotland to the European Union through the agricultural industry? Will the Minister confirm that today, Prime Minister Jospin was prepared to accept into the French market grass-fed herds from Scotland, but that that was turned down by Whitehall? Can he advise me, the House and the agriculture industry what were the roles of the Scottish Office and of the Minister responsible for agriculture in the Scottish Parliament? Where does that leave the alliance, and who is fighting for the Scottish farmers?
    Mr. Wilson: I note that the hon. Lady sensibly avoided the fact that the nationalists voted against the subject of the question, which is the British rebate. In other words, they voted against £48 for every person in Scotland, which does not serve the people of Scotland very well—including, incidentally, the agricultural community.
    As for Prime Minister Jospin's comments today, let me make it absolutely clear that there is no substance in the claim about the tripartite discussions involving the French, the United Kingdom and the European Commission. Even if such an offer had been made, it would not have been the proper basis on which to proceed.
    Even the nationalists, who thrive on division, should think very carefully before backing this. All along, the French have been anxious to drive a wedge into British policy and to achieve an outcome based on a herd-by-herd policy, rather than accepting the European Union's legislative position that all United Kingdom beef that meets the date-based export scheme criteria is safe. In accepting the attempt by the French to divide and rule—
    138
    not in formal negotiations, but in briefing—the hon. Lady is working not only against the interests of many British farmers, but against those of some Scottish farmers.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House will have noted that we have got through only four questions in nearly half an hour.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    European Convention on Human Rights
    Mr. David Stewart: When she last met the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland to discuss the implementation in Scotland of the European convention on human rights. [101243]
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What discussions she has had with the Law Officers in Scotland on implementation of the European convention on human rights in Scotland. [101245]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I meet the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General regularly to discuss matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her reply, and welcome her to her post. What views has she had from court about the implementation of the European convention on human rights, and what is her view of the Fort William case, which has been given a ruling under the convention in regard to limits for legal aid?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: I thank my hon. Friend for his introductory remarks.
    The main issues that have been raised relate to criminal proceedings and alleged breaches of article 6 of the convention. That article relates to the right to a fair trial. The issues involved concern delay in proceedings, access of the accused to a solicitor, legal aid, temporary sheriffs and self-incrimination in road traffic cases. In regard to civil proceedings, there have been challenges to provisions of the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999.
    I understand that there has been a Crown appeal in relation to the Fort William case, but in the circumstances the case is sub judice and it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
    Mr. Dalyell: How is the early introduction of the convention working?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: It is working very well. The Government were elected to modernise the British constitution, and giving further effect to the convention and providing domestic remedies is an important part of that. As my hon. Friend will know, the Human Rights Act 1998 will come into effect throughout

    139
    the United Kingdom next year and, under the Scotland Act 1998, the convention already applies to the Scottish Parliament and to the Executive. That is an integral part of the devolution settlement. It gives the individual the right to challenge in court, by raising a devolution issue, matters that allegedly contravene convention rights. That is good for both individual liberty and democratic government, and the people of Scotland are the first to benefit.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Advocate-General knows, I hold her in high and affectionate regard, and I hope that she will not take my question amiss.
    Using the example that she has just given us, can the Advocate-General tell us exactly what her job is?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: I was unaware of the affectionate regard, but I am delighted to hear of it.
    If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had read the Scotland Act 1998, he would have at least a clue to my duties. Under the Act, I have certain statutory duties, including the ability to refer Scottish Parliament legislation to the Privy Council in certain circumstances. I have certain interests relating to devolution issues, to which I referred earlier, and I have also inherited the opinion work of the Lord Advocate. In my role as a United Kingdom Law Officer, I advise the UK Government and Departments about devolved and reserved Scottish matters. I also advise on more general matters such as human rights and European law. I attend several Cabinet Committees—five at the last count. Is that reply sufficient for the right hon. and learned Gentleman? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Lady was asked a question. Let her answer.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Defamation Victims
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the remedies available to the victims of defamers without assets. [101251]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Criminal libel is available, although it is rarely used, and the Attorney-General's consent to a prosecution is required. Under any other circumstances, the courts are open to everyone, regardless of means. New rules of court for defamation proceedings will be introduced in the new year. They will make it possible for defamation claims to be tackled more quickly and at a lower cost than at present. We also intend to consult in the new year on perceived abuses of defamation procedures.
    Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that answer and I declare an interest as a victim of a destitute defamer. I also thank the Minister for the time that he has already spent discussing and corresponding with me about this
    140
    difficult matter. Does he accept that there is currently no civil remedy that is practically available to the victim of a destitute defamer, because it is impossible to sue such a person without incurring irrecoverable costs and having to pay them when the defamer goes bankrupt?
    I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that the possibility of criminal libel proceedings continues to exist. In his review, will he consider using the law on harassment to deal with persistent destitute defamers; and will he bear it in mind that, in the age of the internet, anyone without assets can defame someone with impunity on a worldwide basis?
    Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman has raised many issues. I shall deal first with the internet. I accept his point, although, as he knows, the regulation of the internet involves much wider issues than defamation. We must consider several issues in connection with the review of defamation procedures. The hon. Gentleman has raised one, but complaints have also been made about rich and powerful people using the law of defamation and the law of contempt to attempt to suppress legitimate comment about themselves and their activities. There are complaints from both ends of the spectrum. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, some of which will be addressed in the consultation paper that we intend to issue in the new year.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: On that point, what about people who claim that they have been defamed, but the action that they bring is bankrolled by other people? I am thinking of no particular individual when I ask that question, but if the action subsequently fails, surely the bankrollers should be liable for the costs?
    Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I share his anxiety. Anyone who puts an individual in funds, through a blind trust, to libel or support the prosecution of a libel, approaches the line where the courts might look to that party for costs or damages if the case fails. It would not be right to comment on any particular case, but those who procure or fund others to fight libel cases may find themselves responsible for the consequences of their actions. It is a matter for the courts.

    Magistrates
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: What plans she has to increase the total number of magistrates. [101252]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor requires his local advisory committees to recommend for appointment sufficient magistrates to enable the courts to operate efficiently. The number of lay magistrates has increased by approximately 8.5 per cent. since 1988, to a total of 30,260 on 1 January 1999.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank the Minister for that answer. However, does she accept that one of the consequences of the Government's proposals to abolish trial by jury is that, in most cases, the magistrate can make the ultimate decision about where a defendant has to face trial?

    141
    Does she further accept that that must mean extra pressure on lists in magistrates courts? The direct result of that must be a need to recruit more magistrates.
    Jane Kennedy: There has of course been a recent recruitment drive, which resulted in a large number of applications, and some applicants are being appointed at the moment. Local and central recruitment initiatives are being undertaken.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Is the Minister aware that a number of magistrates in Gravesham have said that they would leave the Bench if the Kent magistrates courts committee goes ahead with its proposal to close Gravesend magistrates court, and that their opposition to the proposal is shared by the local police, the citizens advice bureau, the local authorities and most of my constituents? Is she further aware that the committee has been criticised in a recent inspection report for its failure properly to consult on proposals for closure? Will she therefore make clear to the committee the importance of consulting the local community before going ahead with such plans?
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Kent magistrates courts committee is responsible under statute for the efficient and effective running of the courts in its area. I expect it to respond constructively to the inspectorate's recommendations, and my officials are monitoring the situation in Kent. They and the inspectorate are offering support to the committee, and I have asked my officials to keep me closely informed of developments.
    Mr. John Burnett: On 25 November last, we debated in Committee an increase in the number of stipendiary magistrates and Members from all three parties emphasised the continuing importance of the lay magistracy. The Minister informed the Committee that research into the cost of the magistracy was to be commissioned by her Department. Has the tender for the research been accepted, and who has been accepted to conduct it? Will she confirm that no precipitate action will be taken in relation either to the lay or to the stipendiary magistracy without full consultation?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions and I shall write to him on the detail, but I understand that that detail is in the public arena. There is support from both sides of the House for the principle of the lay magistracy and the Government are committed to its continuing to play a significant part in the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: While my hon. Friend's Department is not responsible for the appointment of magistrates in the county of Lancashire, does she think that enough is being done to ensure that magistrate appointments—not only in number, but in width and scope—are representative of the communities that magistrates serve? Representation should be as wide as in juries for trials.
    Jane Kennedy: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that good point, which he made very well. He might like to know that although the Lancashire advisory committee
    142
    has not yet established its recruitment needs for the coming year, its initial feeling is that there is a general shortage of applicants in Lancashire—in particular, of Labour supporters.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that not only the number of magistrates, but the number of court buildings is at issue? Under the Government's proposals, both in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, it is likely that there will be far more magistrates courts trials. Does she accept that it may be essential for the Government to reconsider aspects of the closure of magistrates courts and give indications to local magistrates courts committees?
    Will the Minister reconsider the undertaking that she gave to the Committee, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)—that she would either write to me and to other members of the Committee with the details of whether the Government were reconsidering the compliance cost of the 1998 Act in the light of the likelihood of more magistrates courts trials taking place, or would put those details in the Library? I checked with the Library no more than 10 minutes ago and nothing has yet been placed there. The Minister gave her undertaking two weeks ago. I hope that she agrees that she should have written to us all by now.
    Jane Kennedy: The answer is being prepared and will be delivered to members of the Committee. I apologise if I have kept them waiting, but I wanted to get the details right. The Government are committed to modernising the service provided by magistrates courts committees. We believe that it is a matter for local determination and that it is better for local magistrates courts committees to decide on the provision for the area. They have the best view of that as they are the local providers. This year we are spending £16 million on improvements to magistrates courts in addition to the on-going court building programme.

    Lichfield Courts
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If she will make a statement on the future of the magistrates and county courts in Lichfield. [101253]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The hon. Member will be aware from our meeting on 10 November that on 2 September 1999, Staffordshire magistrates courts committee made its final determination to close the Lichfield magistrates court, with effect from 28 February 2000, and sittings will cease there from 31 December 1999. The appeal process is under way and in September 1998 the Lord Chancellor gave permission to begin a public consultation exercise on the proposal to close the Lichfield county court. That has now concluded. A number of detailed responses were received which I am considering carefully.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Harry Cohen.
    Mr. Fabricant: Do I remind you of him, Madam Speaker?

    143
    I thank the Minister for her detailed reply. She said that the matter is still under consideration, but is she aware that the Staffordshire magistrates court committee has decided to refer no more cases to Lichfield magistrates court from the end of this year? Is it not prejudging her decision? When the excellent local newspaper, the Express & Star, questioned Mr. Peter Wooliscroft, chief executive of the Staffordshire magistrates court committee, he said, "The court is not closing. We just won't be using it." Is that not prejudging the Minister's decision, and is it not wrong?
    Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge the robust and persistent representations that the hon. Gentleman has made on the proposed closure of the courts at Lichfield. The decision by the magistrates courts committee to cease listing cases at Lichfield does not prejudge the decision on the appeal. The decision on the court building will be made on the merits of the case.

    Health and Safety Offences
    Mr. Harry Cohen: What plans the Lord Chancellor has to issue guidelines to judges on sentencing for health and safety offences. [101254]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Maximum and, in rare cases, minimum sentences are determined by Parliament. Within those limits there is no role for Parliament or for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to issue sentencing guidelines. Judges and magistrates determine the appropriate sentence in individual cases, taking account of guidance from the higher courts. The criminal division of the Court of Appeal gives guidelines on key issues. It has recently given guidance on sentencing in health and safety matters in the case of R. v. Howe and Son.
    Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend communicate my congratulations to the Lord Chancellor on his 1 December speech to the Trades Union Congress on breaches of health and safety law? He said that judges should be reminded of their sentencing power and that the Government planned to introduce legislation to extend the maximum sentence and to allow for imprisonment for health and safety offences. Will my hon. Friend keep getting over the message that judges should come down hard on those who breach health and safety laws, risking injury and, indeed, people's lives?
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will certainly communicate his congratulations to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. He is perfectly right: the Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Howe and recently in the case of R. v. Rollco Screw and Rivet Co. Ltd. emphasised that the earlier fines were too low and that a fine should be sufficient to bring home to the management and the shareholders of a company that a breach of health and safety regulations that puts employees in danger is a serious matter. My noble and learned Friend put that most strongly in the speech to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: In his earlier answer, in which he suggested
    144
    that the courts might be at liberty to pursue those who put up funds in defamation cases, was the Minister seeking to issue a Lord Chancellor's guideline, or was he resting his point of view on the law?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That supplementary question is quite out of order. We have one minute left and I call Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

    Leisure Facility Licences
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: If she will issue guidance to magistrates on taking into account evidence of smuggled tobacco and alcohol in the premises concerned when considering applications for the renewal of public house, club and restaurant licences. [101255]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Government do not issue guidance on the way in which judicial discretion should be exercised. Magistrates consider all the evidence that is presented at a renewal hearing. Any evidence of the presence of smuggled tobacco and alcohol on premises would clearly be relevant in reaching a decision, but that is obviously a matter for magistrates.
    Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is she aware that there is increasing evidence that landlords, whether willingly or unwillingly, are finding that smuggled tobacco and alcohol are sold on their premises? There appears to be increasing evidence that licensing magistrates are not taking that into account. Does she not think that that is a matter of concern, given that the Government's policy is to crack down on smuggling and bootlegging, not to deal with the basic problem by reducing the tax?
    Jane Kennedy: If what the hon. Lady says is true, it would be a matter of concern, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently announced measures that should help to detect smuggled alcohol and tobacco. They include use of a national network of X-ray scans to help to detect bulk shipments of smuggled tobacco; compulsory marking of United Kingdom duty-paid cigarettes and tobacco; and new offences and penalties for people who are caught smuggling, handling or selling untaxed tobacco.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Food Safety
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the work of the ministerial group on food safety. [101267]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The ministerial group has completed its programme of work overseeing the setting up of the Food Standards Agency.

    145
    The group has, therefore, been wound up, although the Government continue to maintain a close interest in all food safety issues.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the President of the Council for that reply. As, most unusually, I shall have to be absent from business questions on Thursday, may I take the opportunity to wish her a merry Christmas and a happy new year?
    To return as speedily as possible to normal service, does the ministerial group on food safety intend urgently to examine the safety, or otherwise, of imported French turkeys, especially in the light of media reports that their poultry feed may contain human and animal sewage, or do Ministers intend simply to imitate the potentially poisonous birds in question?
    Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and return them. Business questions will definitely not be the same without him, but I am sure that normal service will be resumed in the new year.
    With regard to the issue of the safety, or otherwise, of imported French turkeys, as I have said, the committee has been wound up, but the hon. Gentleman will know that, in effect, a shadow Food Standards Agency is in existence with officials from the relevant ministries. I will draw his observations to the attention of that group, but he will appreciate that it is not a matter for me any more.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the absurdity of the situation that, 20 years ago, this country did away with country of origin marking, which many of us felt was essential, and is now required to label only for British goods? I and many consumers would warmly welcome not only safety measures, but country of origin marking for all imported goods into the UK. If we have to face the spurious argument that safety is involved, is it not time that what was literally sauce for the goose is sauce for that particular gander?
    Mrs. Beckett: Oh dear! I feel a range of horrible jokes coming on in the run-up to the Christmas season.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that, in general, the Government are sympathetic to clear and informative labelling. She will also know that that has been a matter of some controversy throughout the European Union, but I understand that, for a variety of reasons, including the events to which we have referred, those matters are being examined.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. David Borrow: If she will make a statement on the preparedness of the national infrastructure to deal with the millennium date change. [101268]
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: If she will make a statement on the ability of the national infrastructure to cope with the millennium date change. [101272]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Independent assessments show that all the key sectors and processes of the national infrastructure, such as utilities, emergency services, cash and food supply have achieved blue status, showing that there is no identified risk of material disruption over the date change period as a result of the bug. That is very good news, although I stress that there is no room for complacency.
    All providers of essential services should continue to check and recheck their business critical systems and ensure that they have well-tested business continuity plans in place to deal with any unexpected problems that might arise.
    Mr. Borrow: During the summer, I visited my local water treatment works to be briefed on the progress being made towards dealing with the millennium bug, and I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer that 100 per cent. blue cover will be reached by the end of the year. Can she assure me that any constituents of mine whose systems for electricity, gas, telephone or water fail can be certain that that will have had nothing to do with the millennium bug?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I am grateful to him for making that distinction. As I am sure he will know, there are a variety of relatively small-scale service failures on any ordinary day. For example, 40,000 people on average are without power on any particular day. I know from my experience and from the reports of other hon. Members that there are occasions when cash machines, for instance, are not replete with money. We cannot undertake that such everyday problems will not be replicated over the new year, but my hon. Friend is right to draw a distinction between ordinary failures and the effect of the millennium bug.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I am pleased that the UK infrastructure is now fully millennium compliant, and especially glad that the national grid will not fail during my new year celebrations in Southampton. However, does she anticipate any problems arising as a result of the knock-on effects in this country of the possible failure of systems or services in other countries?
    Mrs. Beckett: Certainly, everything has been done to encourage all of those organisations and services that depend on international links in their supply chain to assess those links and pursue them to their origin. That process has also been subject to independent assessment. However, my hon. Friend is entirely right that we cannot be as confident of the scale and nature of preparations elsewhere as we can of those in this country. That is why we have encouraged people to make contingency plans, to follow them through and to have them independently assessed also.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the President of the Council confirm that Parliament is to keep its telephone and computer systems on over the millennium? Is it not regrettable that that decision was not made until this month, even though it was asked for in February? Is that really the example that we should be giving to industry?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to those other hon. Members who serve with him on the Information Committee, as I know that they have taken a great interest in the matter. It has been a difficult decision for the House authorities to have to make, as it of course has staffing implications and the authorities are, as all good employers should be, mindful of employees' wish to be with their families at this time of celebration. I had not recalled that the question was raised so long ago, but I am sure that the House will be pleased with the decision that has been made. As I said, I am grateful for the advice of the Committee.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Given the impossibility of checking the compliance of all computer systems without live tests, will the President of the Council say what measures have been taken to put emergency services on standby and back-up over the holiday, in the event that the confidence that she has expressed is not justified? On a slightly different topic, what assurances can she give the House that the Financial Services Authority's indications that several major institutions may yet face closure have now been rescinded, or is there still a possibility that there will not be enough cash to go around?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raises several matters. On the first, I can tell him that one element of the assessment process that we have insisted on across the national infrastructure is that proper contingency planning be prepared against the event of other failures. The requirement is that back-up be provided where possible, and that people identify ways of working around difficulties elsewhere.
    The hon. Gentleman also asked about the FSA and about some of the companies on which the authority has reported. He also asked about cash. The FSA has confirmed that it does not now anticipate that failures such as the hon. Gentleman described will be more common in its sector than in any other, and has reported that its sector is blue. The financial sector looked into the provision of cash very early on, and that matter has been blue for a considerable time.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What assessment she has made of the United Kingdom's public information programme on the millennium bug. [101269]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Regular research is undertaken of people's perception of the millennium bug and the Government's information programme. The research has been conducted monthly since January 1999. The main findings, which are in the Library, show that overall public concern about the effects of the bug remains low, while awareness of the term "millennium bug" is high, at over 90 per cent. The Government and Action 2000 can claim some credit for this low level of concern, because our public information programme has been well received and has been able to counter some alarmist reports.
    Mrs. Ellman: How does my hon. Friend see the public information campaign progressing between now and the millennium period? How does what has been done in this country compare with what has happened elsewhere—for example, in the United States?
    Mr. Tipping: There will be further newspaper articles to counter any alarmist reports. The Government, as always, will conduct a vigorous rebuttal campaign, and the matter is constantly under review.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Will a series of helpline numbers be published so that people know about them during the millennium period when many ordinary services will be closed? How will those numbers be publicised? Will all Members of Parliament be informed of them? Is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied that all contingency planning is adequate?
    Mr. Tipping: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has written to all Members of Parliament today, giving them information about how they, in particular, can receive information over the millennium period from 31 December to 5 January. Action 2000 will continue to operate its helpline over the period. As the hon. Gentleman knows, every household in the country has received the booklet, "What you should know about the millennium bug". A range of information numbers are contained in it. Contingency planning and millennium operating regimes have been looked at carefully and consistently. We are not complacent, but we are quietly confident.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: But will the numbers be published in the national press and other national media?
    Mr. Tipping: The numbers are published in the booklet, and this week regional newspapers are running a series of features and advertisements; local numbers will be published in those.

    Millennium Holiday
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What arrangements she has made for the discharging of the Government's responsibilities over the millennium holiday period. [101270]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Government will be operating a millennium centre from 31 December to 7 January. The centre will provide briefings to Ministers and the media. All Departments and agencies have in place robust and tested business continuity plans and millennium operating regimes. As part of its MOR, each Department was required to identify the services to be delivered over the millennium period and has put in place measures to ensure that those services are delivered.
    Dr. Ladyman: I congratulate the Government on that initiative. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those who will operate that centre over the millennium period? Will he also thank all who will be providing emergency services over the same period? Will he assure me that they will be told that the only other meridian in the world is the Ramsgate meridian, that Ramsgate mean time is five minutes 41 seconds ahead of Greenwich mean time, and that therefore our celebrations—and any problems associated with the millennium—will be starting that much sooner in Ramsgate?
    Mr. Tipping: I always knew that my hon. Friend was ahead of the field, although I thought it was by longer

    149
    than five minutes. I want to associate myself with his comments, with regard not just to those working in the millennium centre, but to the doctors and nurses working in the NHS, the police, the remaining emergency services and a range of people across the utilities and in the retail sector who are there to ensure that we can remember this millennium for all the right reasons.
    Mr. David Heath: May I associate myself with those sentiments? Can the Minister also assure our diplomatic and military personnel posted
    150
    overseas that they will be able to work independently of the local conditions pertaining over the holiday period and will still be able to do the job that we expect them to do?
    Mr. Tipping: A great deal of work has gone into this issue. We are determined to ensure that our overseas businesses and nationals have the right support during the millennium period. We have planned and made arrangements as far as is possible, but some embassies will be dependent on sources of supply that are outside our control. However, even for those cases, contingency plans have been made.

Point of Order
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the cancellation of the highly desirable visit of the Pope to Iraq, that war-torn land with terrible problems, have you had any request from a Foreign Office Minister to answer my Question 55 to the President of the Council, so that it can be explained whether pressure was put on the Vatican by Washington and London?
Madam Speaker: No. I see the hon. Gentleman's question on the Order Paper, but I have had no information from any of the Departments concerned.

Orders of the Day

  Terrorism Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill provides for permanent anti-terrorist powers for the police, other law enforcement agencies and the courts. Let me first explain to the House why we judge that such powers—powers additional to those of the general criminal law—are needed.
  Terrorism involves the threat or use of serious violence for political, religious or ideological ends. It is premeditated, and aims to create a climate of extreme fear. While the direct victims may be specific or symbolic targets, they may also be selected at random. In any event, terrorism is aimed at influencing a wider target than its immediate victims.
  Although all crime to some degree plainly threatens the stability of the social and political order, terrorism differs from crime motivated solely by greed in that it is directed at undermining the foundations of government. It poses special difficulties for those of us who live in liberal democracies. Our sense of outrage is all the greater because in such democracies the overwhelming majority of the population believe that there are adequate non-violent means for expressing opposition and dissent. However, we will have handed the terrorists the victory that they seek if, in combating their threats and violence, we descend to their level and undermine the essential freedoms and rule of law that are the bedrock of our democracy.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I accept the generality of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but will he help me on one point? Am I right in thinking that the actions of the Kosovo Liberation Army in combating the Serbs in Kosovo or, for that matter, those of the Kurds in fighting Saddam Hussein in north Iraq, fall within the scope of terrorism as defined in clauses 1 and 57?
  Mr. Straw: I understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, and in one sense he may be correct, but we are talking about terrorism in this country. I will deal with what is in clause 57 in a moment. Although clause 1 has a wider coverage than the current arrangements for Irish and international terrorism, such activities are already covered in the existing definitions of terrorism. The broadening of the Bill covers domestic terrorism. We are raising the threshold for triggering the powers in the Bill above the threshold in the temporary legislation. I shall come on to explain that point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Under the previous Government, Lord Lloyd of Berwick carried out a detailed inquiry into legislation against terrorism and reported to Parliament in October 1996. He opened the third chapter of his report by complimenting Gearty and Kimbell's publication "Terrorism and the Rule of Law". He said that the authors had identified three general principles that should govern

  153
  any code of laws designed to counter violent subversion—equality of treatment before the law, fairness in application of the law, and respect for certain basic principles of human dignity.
  In paragraph 3.1, Lord Lloyd went on to say:
  "I favour the authors' approach in beginning from a set of principles, and these seem to me perfectly sound as far as they go. But they are not sufficiently descriptive for a review of this kind, so I have formulated my own as follows:

  (i) Legislation against terrorism should approximate as closely as possible to the ordinary criminal law and procedure;

  (ii) Additional statutory offences and powers may be justified, but only if they are necessary to meet the anticipated threat. They must then strike the right balance between the needs of security and the rights and liberties of the individual;

  (iii) The need for additional safeguards should be considered alongside any additional powers;

  (iv) The law should comply with the UK's obligations in international law."

  In preparing the Bill, I have sought carefully to follow those four principles.
  There is, however, a wider issue, particularly now, which is whether the threat of terrorism today is such that it justifies any specific legislation. The counter-terrorist legislation currently in force goes back to 1974, to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill introduced into this House in late November of that year, a week after the terrible bombings in Birmingham in which 21 people were killed and 180 injured. On Second Reading, the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, said:
  "I do not think that anyone would wish these exceptional powers to remain in force a moment longer than is necessary"—[official Report, 25 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 642.]
  To underline that, the powers in the Bill were subject initially not to yearly, but to six-monthly review.
  Despite the hope in 1974 that the need for counter-terrorist legislation would be short-lived, those powers—with amendments and additions—remain in force a quarter of a century later. In the interim, more than 2,000 people have died in the United Kingdom as a result of Irish and international terrorism, and thousands more have been injured. The toll would unquestionably have been greater without the anti-terrorist powers, and above all without the courage and commitment shown by members of the police and security forces over 25 years.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I endorse the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to the courage of police officers and armed forces personnel. Part VII of the Bill deals with Northern Ireland, the system of non-jury trial there and the appointment of an independent assessor of military complaints. If decommissioning occurred before the end of May to the satisfaction of General de Chastelain, the two Governments and the politicians of Northern Ireland, what implications would that have for the implementation of the Bill?
  Mr. Straw: I shall deal with that point in more detail when I reach part VII, which is included in the Bill because the emergency provisions Act that covers Northern Ireland is due to expire next August. It was felt appropriate to bring these matters together. It is the fervent wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House
  154
  and of the people of Northern Ireland that the emergency provisions should be withdrawn as soon as possible. One of the Bill's main purposes is to provide permanent counter-terrorist legislation that is not specific to Northern Ireland. We hope that so-called Irish terrorism will wither on the vine. If the Bill is enacted, either part of part VII—what amounts at present to the EPA—or the whole of it will be open to withdrawal by affirmative resolution of the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will want to take such action as soon as he judges it to be safe.
  My hon. Friend's intervention reminds us that there is now a better chance for a lasting peace in the island of Ireland than at any time that any of us can recall. However, not everyone on either side of the religious divide is signed up to peace. It is only 16 months since the carnage at Omagh in which 29 people died and more than 200 were injured. In the same month, August 1998, there were particularly horrific examples of international terrorism, when bombs exploded outside United States embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, killing 257, mainly local, people and injuring thousands of others.
  Lord Lloyd's inquiry was one of the most thorough ever conducted into the nature of the terrorist threat. Writing before Omagh, Dar es Salaam or Nairobi, Lord Lloyd concluded that, even when there was a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, the need for counter-terrorist legislation would remain. He recommended, however, that the legislation should cease to be specific to Northern Ireland, and that a new Bill should be brought in to put the provisions on a permanent footing.
  The Government have accepted the central conclusion and recommendation of Lord Lloyd's inquiry: that even when what we judged to be a lasting peace had been achieved, there would remain a requirement for specific counter-terrorist legislation. We have consulted widely on how that recommendation should be effected. I point out to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that, in effect, that process of consultation has been going on for at least three years, since the publication of Lord Lloyd's report. This time last year, I published a consultation document entitled "Legislation against Terrorism", and last Thursday I published a summary of the responses received. The Bill is thus the consequence of that long, open and deliberative process. In view of that, I hope that the House will accept that the examination of these provisions by a Special Standing Committee—which I understand the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey proposes—is not necessary.
  In preparing the legislation, I have kept much in mind the four principles set out by Lord Lloyd, and the need to act fairly and proportionately. The Bill is not intended to threaten in any way the right to demonstrate peacefully—nor will it do so. It is not designed to be used in situations where demonstrations unaccountably turn ugly. Should any unlawful activities occur in such circumstances, the powers available under the ordinary criminal law will, as now, suffice.
  I shall deal with the new definition of terrorism that we propose in the Bill, and with its application to all forms of terrorism. However, I make it clear that the new definition will not catch the vast majority of so-called domestic activist groups. To respond to a recent example,

  155
  I know of no evidence whatever that Greenpeace is involved in any activity that would fall remotely under the scope of this measure.
  Mr. Hogg: If someone decided to break into a mink farm in order to release the mink from their cages, or to break into a research station and destroy the animals cages, that would clearly be an act of serious violence. It would be a criminal act—and one that I would deplore. But why should such organisations be classified as "terrorist" under clause 1?
  Mr. Straw: Examples of the type given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman are easy to invent, but, in practice—
  Mr. Hogg: Violence to property.
  Mr. Straw: In practice, we are talking about the threat of serious violence. Of course, there is a fine dividing line.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to respond—
  Madam Speaker: Order. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has asked a question, he might listen to the answer.
  Mr. Hogg: I apologise, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Thank you.
  Mr. Straw: There are people who claim to be in favour of so-called animal liberation who have engaged in actions that not only caused risks but resulted in the most serious violence to individuals, and have put people under threat of their lives. Such circumstances may well fall within the ambit of clause 1. Having said that, I believe that we must have some confidence in the law enforcement agencies and the courts. If we look back at the past 25 years, we can see that the powers have been used proportionately in the face of an horrific threat from terrorism in Ireland and a considerable threat from international terrorism. Moreover, as I have explained, we are raising the threshold of the definition in the Bill; we are adding to the powers in only one respect; and we are removing many powers to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken exception in the past.
  The Bill does not focus on demonstrations, which are a normal activity in a democracy. I wholly defend people's right to go in for peaceful protest—indeed, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been involved in such peaceful protests.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: We still are.
  Mr. Straw: My Parliamentary Private Secretary says that we still are. Many of us have been involved in peaceful protests and I defend the right of peaceful protest. We are not talking about demonstrations that get out of hand.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara rose—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to both my hon. Friends in a minute.
  156
  Instead, the Bill focuses on the opposite end of the spectrum. It is about deterring, preventing and, where necessary, investigating heinous crime—heinous because terrorism seeks to destroy not only lives, but the foundation of our society. The Bill is therefore about protecting, not threatening, fundamental rights. In the words of the Home Office's principal purpose, it is about establishing a
  "safe, just and tolerant society".
  Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend has now introduced a new word—heinous. Is that to be the equivalent of serious? What criteria will he suggest police forces should adopt in bringing an action under clause 1? What is serious? What is heinous? Is it something that involves a real threat to life? Is it something deliberate or accidental? Will a cash value also be placed on the action, depending on the extent of the damage to property, or will it be simply a question of inconvenience? Those are very real problems, about which many people are worried, and "serious" is a very wide definition in these various matters.
  Mr. Straw: I understand the point that my hon. Friend raises. We have to legislate with words because that is all we have, but we also have to trust and do more than trust—we must build safeguards into our framework of law to ensure that arrangements such as those in the Bill, which I accept at the outset go beyond the normal criminal law, are used responsibly and proportionately.
  I know that my hon. Friend has changed his mind, but I remind him that he supported the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in ringing tones when it came before the House on 28 November 1974. He fully supported his then right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, saying that the introduction of the Bill was
  "the least he could do."
  He also said that it would be
  "sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 700.]
  I fully understand that my hon. Friend has changed his mind since then, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Bill that he supported at that stage had a lower threshold for the triggering of the powers than does the Bill before us.
  There has been some almost wilful misunderstanding of the Bill by some who have taken exception to it in extravagant language. Clause 1 does not create an offence of terrorism. It sets out the extremely specific circumstances in which the use of police powers can be triggered, or in which the use of other powers can be triggered—also in very controlled circumstances. In each case, the powers—including the power of proscription—are subject to proper judicial adjudication.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for two reasons. First, he reminded me of my stupidity in believing that, when the 1974 PTA was passed, it would be in force for only six months. However, I was right at the time. Secondly, I want to remind my right hon. Friend that he, too, voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. He also fought an election against going into the

  157
  Common Market and an election in favour of repealing all the Conservative Government's industrial relations Acts. He also made speeches on other matters. Should he not bear it in mind that it is possible that not only St. Paul but he and I have had Damascene conversions?
  The issue now is whether the circumstances that resulted in the passing of the Act in 1974—when to push us through the Lobby to vote in favour, promises were made and threats were whispered in the Corridors about the reintroduction of capital punishment if the legislation was not passed—apply at this time.
  Mr. Straw: I understand something about conversions. I know that my hon. Friend has changed his mind on this subject. I was not in the House at that time, but my support for the principle of anti-terrorist legislation has perhaps been, since the 1980s, rather more consistent than his.
  Mr. McNamara: Since the 1980s?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend would get a surprise if he looked at my voting record. As for the Common Market, he is right. Not only did I vote against our continued membership of the Common Market, I campaigned against it as an active member of the "No" campaign. However, you would rule me out of order, Madam Speaker, if I went too far on that.
  I regard my hon. Friend as the epitome of rationality. I say to him that although he came to a different view in 1974, he did so with the same rational brain that all of us have come to know and love so much, and it would therefore have been possible for him to encompass a different judgment then. To offer him comfort, I tell him that the threshold that we are putting in the Bill for good reasons—circumstances have changed—is higher than existed then.
  On the overall circumstances, I do not believe that it is possible to consider the continued potential for Irish terrorism from organisations and individuals who are not signed up to the peace agreement; the threat of international terrorism, which continues; or the potential threat of some domestic terrorism, and to say that there is no threat of terrorism. Notwithstanding that, it may be possible to assert that such threats should be dealt with within the existing criminal law and procedure—and we are principally talking about procedure rather than criminal law. Although I appreciate that point of view, I come to a different opinion. I draw particular attention to the careful analysis in Lord Lloyd's report, which in turn drew on the opinion, which I have already cited, of well-known academics who have studied the issue with considerable care.
  Mr. Corbyn: In the intervention made by the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham—
  Mr. Hogg: I am the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
  Mr. Corbyn: I beg his pardon—the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). That is near to Grantham; we all know where it is.
  158
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about whether Greenpeace or animal liberation front groups could be named as terrorist organisations either by him as the current Home Secretary or by any future Home Secretary.
  There is also the equally serious point that many migrant organisations that campaign actively and peacefully in this country for enormous political change in their own country are labelled as terrorist organisations by the Government of their country. I am thinking of the Governments of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, India and many other countries who have at various times named overseas political opponents as terrorist organisations. Is there a danger that the traditional right of people in exile to campaign for political change in their own country would be curtailed by their organisations being named as terrorist organisations in this country, which would bring them into the orbit of British law and prevent them from acting to achieve the political change that they desire?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's first question was about Greenpeace and animal rights organisations. I am not a signed-up member of Greenpeace, but on its behalf I take considerable exception to it being lumped with some animal rights organisations. I answered the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. I say with considerable care that I know of no evidence whatever related to Greenpeace's activities that could bring it remotely within the Bill's ambit. I could not be clearer about that.
  Proscription of organisations is dealt with in part II. If my hon. Friend reads clause 3, as I am sure he will, he will see that an organisation becomes a candidate for proscription only if it is concerned in terrorism and, under subsection (5),
  "commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism."
  The power of proscription is of course an extreme power, and it has been used only in very specific circumstances in respect of Irish terrorism. My hon. Friend will be well aware that clause 5 provides that if the Secretary of State decides to proscribe an organisation, a judicial commission known as the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission will make the final decision about any proscription.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall make one more point before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned India. That is interesting because he may have the idea that the incitement provisions in clause 57 might lead to someone being charged in this country with incitement to commit, in India, one of the serious offences laid down in the clause. That is not the case, because since the introduction by the previous Labour Government of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, incitement to commit such serious crimes in India and Council of Europe countries has been

  159
  an offence. We are seeking, in a limited way, to remove certain anomalies in the criminal law, not to establish a new principle.
  Mr. Hughes: As the Home Secretary knows, my colleagues and I support the end of piecemeal legislation and the introduction of UK-wide legislation. However, his definition of terrorism, which is at the heart of the Bill, goes beyond the dictionary definition, which concerns actions of a political nature, and it goes beyond the phrasing in Lord Lloyd's report, which relates to coercing Governments and, therefore, to the political process.
  If we take into account clauses 1 and 38 and the incitement provisions, the Bill's definition sweeps in not only people who attack property for an environmental objective or for objectives connected with other general issues such as animal rights, but people who support organisations outside Governments in countries that are not democratic. All those people would now be included in the definition. Does the Home Secretary accept that it is a much wider definition than we have had before?
  Mr. Straw: No, I do not—quite the reverse. The current definition of terrorism applies to Irish terrorism and international terrorism. I accept that the scope of the Bill is broader than that of current legislation, in that it encompasses domestic terrorism. I think that that is justified and anyone who is familiar with some of this country's not directly political, but ideological and religious groups would agree.
  In Japan, a religious cult released nerve gas on the Tokyo underground: I hope nothing similar ever happens here, but, if it does, we need powers to deal with it. If the security forces were to obtain information that such an organisation was plotting such an outrage in this country, the security forces would need the powers provided in the Bill to prevent the outrage from occurring. That is the principal justification for introducing powers to arrest and detain on reasonable suspicion of involvement in acts of terrorism whose scope are wider than those covered in existing anti-terrorism legislation and in the normal criminal law, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the threshold in the Bill is lower than that in existing anti-terrorist legislation and that proposed in Lord Lloyd's report. The wording of existing provisions is different, talking of "violence" rather than "serious violence", so, in that respect, the threshold is raised by the Bill. The language we have used differs from Lord Lloyd's. He talks of government, but that is too specific: a terrorist act can threaten the foundations of our society without being exclusively directed against government, except when that word is understood in its broadest sense; therefore ours is a sensible and proportionate description.
  I repeat that clause 1 does not create a terrorist offence. It sets out the circumstances in which terrorism takes place and defines terrorism; in turn, in limited circumstances, those provisions may trigger the use of the powers set out in the Bill. Those powers are backed by offences, but the clause does not in itself create any offences.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Many of us are concerned that the definition of terrorism has been
  160
  broadened to encompass a series of offences that are currently covered by normal criminal law, and that it is hard to see how they will not fall within the new anti-terrorism law. My right hon. Friend says that there are different thresholds, but many Members of Parliament are involved in international campaigns, such as those that support, for example, the action of Kurds resisting being driven from their lands by the building of dams, the resistance of the Ogoni in Nigeria to the theft and pollution of their lands, and the resistance of the Amazon Indians to the destruction of their rain forests. All those campaigns of resistance have involved incidents of violent collision with those who would destroy people's livelihoods and lives. Despite my right hon. Friend's assurances, it is hard to see how such international campaigns, if supported by acts of solidarity within this country, will not be covered by the provisions of the Bill. Will he spell out where and why they will not be covered?
  Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. In general terms, people supporting one or another of the international causes he cites will not even remotely come under the Bill. It is perfectly possible that some of those who support those causes will conspire to commit, either abroad or in this country, acts that are plainly, by any definition, terrorist acts; in that case, they would come under the legislation. However, to think that the Bill will restrict the right of peaceful protest, demonstration and campaigning is wholly erroneous.
  Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way on an important subject. My view is somewhat different from that of some of my colleagues, who are critical. I have always taken the view that Britain should not be used as a base for terrorism abroad. The use of this country for such a purpose cannot be defended or justified because of what happened previously in relation to the anti-apartheid movement, which I supported from day one and throughout my political life. Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who accept the broad thrust of the Bill have certain misgivings and feel that under a Government different from the present one civil liberties could be threatened or undermined? He has said that in combating terrorism we must take a proportional and responsible attitude and not give ammunition to the very people who, through their terrorism, also want to destroy or undermine our democracy. I hope that on Report, if not in Committee, he will be flexible in reconsidering various safeguards which would go further than the existing ones. After all, I speak as someone who supports what he is trying to do in combating terrorism.
  Mr. Straw: I understand and share my hon. Friend's anxieties. I also share his view about the need for the powers that are set out in the Bill. I was about to say that we have put in place another profound safeguard against the disproportionate use of the powers that we are discussing, and that is the Human Rights Act 1998, which will come into force on 2 October 2000, before the Bill takes effect. That measure brings into our domestic law all the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as well as specific articles, including article 5, which provides protection against arbitrary detention, and article 6, which provides the right to a fair trial.
  Leaving aside whether or not successive Governments will have the same concern to balance liberty and the fight against terrorism as this Government have, the Human

  161
  Rights Act will provide powerful control over the use of the powers that are set out in the Bill. I also say—I hope that this will be of reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North, who was concerned, as I have been—that we took great exception in opposition to what we saw as particularly arbitrary aspects of the prevention of terrorism Acts. For example, we took exception to the use of exclusion powers, to Secretaries of State having power to authorise extensions of detention without judicial authority and to section 18 in the current Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which relates to tipping off.
  In each instance, we have made fundamental amendments. I have not operated exclusion powers since early 1998. I am sure that they were dropped altogether under PTA renewals, and they are absent from the Bill. We have ensured in the Bill that in place of a Secretary of State having the power to authorise an extension of detention, that power will be exercised by stipendiary magistrate—district judges, as they will come to be known from April next year. We were told for years and years that that would not be possible, but the change has been made in the Bill. It is one that meets the concerns that we expressed. Section 18 offences, which have given rise to considerable anxieties, have been dropped altogether.
  We have sought to act proportionately. However, I accept the need—it is the role of the House—to examine with particularly great care that which we are proposing. If there are ways in which the Bill can be improved, it is our duty to accept those suggestions.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am worried, as are a fair number of others inside and outside the House, because it looks as though supporters of the African National Congress could come under the provisions of clause 57. If that is not my right hon. Friend's intention, will he undertake to reword the clause so that that is utterly clear?
  Mr. Straw: Will my hon. Friend allow me to come to that point in a moment? I will then take further interventions. I need to make—
  Mr. Corbyn: What about the point just made?
  Mr. Straw: I give way to my hon. Friend, then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am aware that this is the second time that I have intervened, but I have more than one objection to the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned the European Court of Human Rights and the welcome passage of the Human Rights Act 1998. Is he aware that, according to a considerable body of legal opinion, the Bill goes well beyond the provisions of the human rights legislation, and any prosecutions under it would fall foul of the law already passed by the House? What advice has my right hon. Friend received?
  Mr. Straw: I am not aware of that. I signed a certificate—I did not sign it blind—stating that in my
  162
  view, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that far from what he says being correct, the reverse is correct: a decision by the previous Government was overturned in the Strasbourg court in 1988 in the Brogan case, which holds that executive powers in the prevention of terrorism Acts were contrary to articles 5 and 6.
  As a result of that, the previous Government had to enter a derogation to the European convention, which still exists. As a result of the Bill—this is a good reason for voting for it, I say to my hon. Friend—we will be able to withdraw that derogation and bring ourselves into line with the convention rights. I was delighted, as ever, to give way to my hon. Friend. I look forward to him calling a vote, and then voting with us on the Bill.
  I said before that the Bill does not create the separate offence of terrorism. When terrorists are brought to trial, they are typically prosecuted for offences in the ordinary criminal law—murder, explosives offences, conspiracy to cause explosions, unlawful possession of firearms and so on.
  The main purpose of the Bill is not to extend the criminal code, but to give the police special powers to enable them to prevent and investigate that special category of crime. Those powers include an enhanced power to arrest and detain suspects, and powers to set up cordons, to stop and search vehicles and pedestrians, to investigate terrorist finances and to examine people passing through ports.
  The police have no interest in using those powers in circumstances in which the normal criminal law will suffice, nor do they have the resources to do so. In 1998, only 45 people were detained in connection with terrorism, and extensions of detention were granted for just 21 of them.
  I have mentioned Brogan. I shall deal now with clause 57, about which some hon. Members have expressed concern, and the new provisions on incitement and proscription.
  The aim of the incitement proposals in clause 57 is to deter those who seek to use the United Kingdom as a base from which to promote terrorist acts abroad. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North some time ago, the provisions of the Bill do no more than fill gaps in the existing law. Under the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, which was passed by a Labour Government, the UK already has extra-territorial jurisdiction over a number of serious offences including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, wounding with intent, and causing explosions, and incitement to any of those offences.
  That extra-territorial jurisdiction covers all Council of Europe countries, including—I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who is concerned about the Kurds—Turkey. That jurisdiction already exists. If the police and the Crown Prosecution Service had wanted to prosecute people in this country for incitement to commit various offences in Turkey, they could have done so at any time since 1978. The countries covered by the jurisdiction also include India.
  Under other specific international conventions, and UK statutes bringing those into force, hostage taking and hijacking, and incitement to hostage taking and hijacking, are offences in the UK if committed in any country in the world.

  163
  The present law, I suggest to the House, is plainly anomalous. There is no obvious justification for incitement to commit murder in Turkey or India to be an offence in the UK, whereas incitement to commit murder in Japan or Australia is not an offence. The Bill seeks to put those anomalies right.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that this is a serious matter.
  Kurdish representatives came to see the then Foreign Secretary, the then Prime Minister and me, to obtain our support for their campaign to drive Saddam Hussein and his army out of north Iraq. On the face of it, that falls within the scope of action capable of constituting terrorism under clause 1.
  I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be saying not that I am wrong, but that no one would be prosecuted for encouraging the Kurds to take such action, because of the discretionary power of the prosecution authority. That, however, is a profoundly unattractive situation.
  Mr. Straw: I simply do not accept the proposition. The idea that in this country the police would investigate such an alleged offence in respect of Iraq, that the Crown Prosecution Service would bring a charge and that the Director of Public Prosecutions would give his consent cannot exist outside the right hon. and learned Gentleman's fevered imagination.
  Of course, we can all invent hypothetical circumstances—fantastic circumstances—in which any of us, according to the criminal code, could be charged and subject to conviction; but there is no point in our doing so. We know that, in the real world in which we live, the criminal law is subject to a significant series of checks and balances, including proper invigilation by the courts of the land and control of the Crown Prosecution Service by Members of Parliament who are answerable to the House of Commons and the other place. Such circumstances therefore do not arise, and I do not believe that they ever will.
  At precisely the time when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was engaging in the discussions to which he referred, the Government of whom he was a member were supporting the Jurisdiction (Conspiracy and Incitement) Bill, introduced in 1996 by the then Member of Parliament Nigel Waterson.
  Mr. John Greenway: He is still a Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Straw: In that case, I apologise to the House for failing to remember that he was not knocked out on 1 May 1997. We have so many absent friends now.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: It makes one weep.
  Mr. Straw: Indeed it does. Anyway, I apologise abjectly for failing to remember that Eastbourne is one of the seats that we did not win.
  The scope of that Bill was infinitely wider than the provisions in clause 57 of this Bill. The earlier Bill made incitement to commit an offence abroad an offence here, referring to any offence in the criminal calendar. It would certainly have caught a variety of potential offences that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North
  164
  Hykeham had in mind. This Bill, however, deals with a much narrower set of offences, and is consistent with the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I support the Bill, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has raised an interesting point. It is entirely possible that diplomatic pressure could be exerted for other reasons—to do with trade, perhaps, or preparedness to support some new international treaty—for a prosecution to be brought against a group active in, say, Saudi Arabia. We might not deem that group to be violent, but those exerting the pressure might believe it to be so. Is my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied that that possibility has been taken into account?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I do not want to refer to Saudi Arabia specifically, but it is true that pressure was exerted on the last Government, and is exerted on the present Government from time to time, by other Governments whose history in respect of democratic and peaceful protest and representative government is not as long as ours, and who complain about the fact that people in this country are campaigning against them. As long as those people operate peacefully—and, I add parenthetically, their immigration status is satisfactory—they are fully entitled to protest. The test in a democracy is not whether one accords rights to people with whom one agrees, but to those with whom one profoundly disagrees. I defend their rights.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Prime Minister agree?
  Mr. Straw: Of course he does.
  Dr. Godman: Sensible fellow.
  Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend says, he is a sensible fellow—I hope that my hon. Friend was referring to the Prime Minister, not to me.
  Pressure will be exerted. I have had to tell some Governments—to avoid doubt, not that of Saudi Arabia—"People in this country may campaign against you, but as those people have committed no offence under the British criminal code, and their immigration status is in order, the fact that they cause you some difficulty is regrettable for you, but it is the nature of our society that we encourage dissent." If those Governments persist in their efforts, I remind them of this country's long history of encouraging dissent and that Karl Marx wrote "Das Kapital" in the basement of the British museum.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I can be a little more precise. Let us suppose that there was a major defence contract, which was worth billions of pounds over many years, and that a Government in the middle east exerted pressure on the British Government by telling them that, if they wanted the contract, they would have to take action against a militant group, active in London in conspiring in and drawing together an international campaign. Does not my right hon. Friend foresee circumstances—not under

  165
  a Labour Government, but under other future Governments—in which that sort of pressure could pay off?
  Mr. Straw: I genuinely do not believe that that would happen. Let us assume for a moment that holders of my office, regardless of party, are completely venal and have an interest only in securing that defence contract. No member of the Government would make the decision to prosecute. First, the police would have to decide whether to investigate an alleged offence. The law guarantees the operational independence of chief officers of police. It is profoundly important under our constitution to ensure that it is not possible for the holder of a political officer, however high or mighty, to instruct a chief officer to investigate a crime because it happens to suit that person's purpose.
  Secondly, clause 113 provides that,
  "proceedings shall not be instituted in England and Wales"—
  that also applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland—
  "for an offence under any provision of this Act without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
  I know of no Director of Public Prosecutions or Attorney-General under any Government who would give comfort to the view that the pressures that we are discussing should influence a prosecution. Moreover, were such pressures put on paper or recorded, they would have to be disclosed to the defence, which would clearly help the defence's case.
  Mr. Tom King: The anxiety of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is understandable because problems exist. We can be totally safeguarded against the problem only by allowing the position to continue whereby this country could become a safe haven in which terrorists operate. The challenge that the Home Secretary issued at the beginning of his speech was that if additional powers were put in place to cover a genuine problem, the safeguards must be sufficient. The integrity of Ministers is often bolstered by the knowledge of the existence of judicial review.
  Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks and, to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), we should defend to the last the right of peaceful protest and dissent in this country. At the same time, we should not provide a haven for people who are plainly committing, organising or inciting terrorist acts here or abroad.
  I have witnessed only one terrorist act in this country, which was the bomb that went off at the Old Bailey in—[Interruption.] I have listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham; may I be allowed to complete my sentence?
  I have witnessed directly the results of a terrorist outrage only once, when a bomb went off at the Old Bailey in 1973, although other Members of the House have witnessed far more terrible events with much greater frequency. An outrageous aspect of terrorist activity is its indiscriminate nature. If people are killed or injured, the fact that the bombs, the shrapnel and the glass carry a label marked "Animal rights" or the name of some foreign country is immaterial to those who suffer. The victims of
  166
  such outrages are completely innocent and I hope that the House, in ensuring that the Bill is proportionate, is able to do its job of scrutinising and improving legislation. We must also think of the possible consequences of terrorist outrages in the absence of such legislation: innocent lives might be saved if such powers were on the statute book. That is the balance that we are seeking to achieve.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I want to bring my remarks to a close because I have been speaking for almost an hour.
  I want to put on record the main components of the Bill about which I have not spoken. Part I contains the definition of terrorism and part II the provisions for proscription. Part III deals with terrorist property and removes the tipping-off offence. Parts IV and V introduce a range of investigative tools and other counter-terrorist powers. Part VI refers to a number of further terrorist offences, including incitement provisions. Part VII relates to temporary measures for Northern Ireland only. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, we are committed to removing those emergency powers in Northern Ireland as soon as it is safe to do so. In parallel with the passage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to review the arrangements for non-jury trials. Working with interested ministerial colleagues, he will consider what potential exists for making changes at this stage and, if and when that is judged right, what steps would be necessary to achieve the Government's overall aim of a return to jury trial.
  The wide-ranging and evolving threat from terrorism will not go away. The Bill therefore sets in place an appropriate and effective range of provisions, which is proportionate to the reality of the threat that we face and of practical operational benefit. It also sends a clear message to terrorists and their supporters and is consistent with the rule of law and our democratic traditions. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.28 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for setting out the details of this very necessary Bill before the House. The necessity for such a Bill is of course regrettable, but it is nevertheless fully recognised. I should therefore say at the outset that should any Member divide the House this evening, the Government will have the Opposition's full support in seeking a Second Reading for the Bill.
  Conservative Members have never shirked their duty to take the toughest stand against terrorism and to give the police and the armed forces the powers that they need to protect the public. That is why, when in government, we significantly increased the powers available in the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act and why we had no hesitation in backing the Government when they introduced new powers in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing last year.
  We have always believed that there should be a united front across all parties in the House in the fight against terrorism, from wherever that terrorism may come and whosoever perpetrates it. It demonstrates the total determination of the House that terrorism shall not

  167
  succeed and that parliamentary government throughout the United Kingdom will be vigorously defended. Whenever that bipartisan consensus breaks down, the only people who gain any succour are those who wish to subvert democracy and the rule of law for their own ends—the terrorists themselves.
  Of course, bipartisanship in the House has never been and can never be about giving the Government a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Obviously, we all reserve the right to raise specific ideas where we think that the Government may be getting it wrong. Nevertheless, there is no doubt about one thing—the Opposition will always back legislation that makes life harder for those who engage in or support acts of terrorism. On that central point we believe passionately that the Government and the Opposition should stand as one.
  As the Home Secretary has been discussing Damascene conversions, let me say that I wish that it had always been the case that the Government of the day had the vigorous support of the Opposition over such issues. I do not doubt that all right hon. and hon. Members abhor terrorism and I do not doubt for one moment their determination to see terrorism defeated, but the defeat of terrorism requires more than condemnation and more than just words; it requires a willingness to act.
  That is why I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the actions of his party in opposition throughout many of the darkest days of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, when Labour Members trooped into the Opposition Lobby to vote against the legislation. Year after year, increasingly lame excuses were trotted out one after another. I do not believe that we shall ever forget the sight of the Prime Minister, when he was shadow Home Secretary, the very night that IRA mortar bombs were raining down on Heathrow airport, ignoring the pleas of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and leading his colleagues into the Lobby to vote against the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. That was a shoddy and shameful action for the official Opposition in the House of Commons. It is not a pattern that the present Opposition intend ever to follow. It is not without a certain irony today that it falls to the party which in opposition described much of the legislation that it is now introducing as unnecessary and counterproductive finally to have the responsibility to place it permanently on the statute book.
  We all agree that terrorism is evil and that those who engage in it or support it seek simply to gain through violence that which they are denied by the ballot box. We cannot allow that to happen. Democracy cannot afford to tolerate it, let alone allow it to succeed, for to do so would fatally undermine democracy itself. So we must never be prepared—nor will the Opposition ever be prepared—to compromise democracy and terror.
  Here in the United Kingdom we have lived with terrorism and the threat of terrorism for some 30 years. It has been principally, though certainly not exclusively, in connection with Northern Ireland and the facts are chilling. More than 3,600 people have been killed and more than 40,000 injured either in Northern Ireland or Great Britain as a result of the violence associated with the troubles.
  We have witnessed scenes of unmitigated horror and barbarism and they are all etched indelibly on our minds: La Mon house, Warrenpoint, Enniskillen, the Shankill road,
  168
  Greysteel, Canary wharf and, most recently, Omagh. Those are just some of them, but there have been many more and we must never forget the suffering that our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland have had to endure. Their resilience and their fortitude, along with that shown by people throughout the entire United Kingdom, has ensured that the ballot box will always prevail over the armalite.
  Nor should we forget the efforts of the police and the armed forces. I have no hesitation in commending their dedication, professionalism and sheer courage in facing the full force of the terrorist onslaught over the past 30 years. In particular, it is timely again to recall the sacrifice of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the thin green line that has literally stood between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy, and not just in Northern Ireland. As both the Metropolitan police and the Garda would be the first to acknowledge, the RUC is the first line of defence for mainland Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The RUC has paid a terrible price: 302 officers have been murdered and more than 9,000 have been maimed or injured. No police service anywhere is more deserving of our praise. Therefore, I willingly join those who have already congratulated the force on the award of the George Cross. Without the RUC, the opportunities that we see in Northern Ireland today would not exist. Everyone who cares about the rule of law owes the RUC the most profound debt of gratitude.
  Conservative Members unreservedly welcome the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, including the establishment of the Executive and the devolution of powers to the Assembly. In our view, the Belfast agreement offers the best hope for a lasting peace underpinned by stable political institutions. There is at long last the possibility that the politically motivated violence that has characterised and scarred the past 30 years might become a thing of the past. But we are also certain that, if all sides are to move forward with confidence, the Belfast agreement will have to be implemented in full. In other words, devolution must be accompanied by the decommissioning of all illegally held terrorist arms and explosives. There can be no place in government—I hope that the Home Secretary, when he is not as distracted as he has been for the past 10 minutes, will agree—for representatives of fully armed terrorist organisations that seek to cling on to their weapons of murder and mayhem.
  Of course, the security situation is much improved. It is undeniable that life in Northern Ireland for many people is decidedly better and that there is a real determination that things must not go back to how they were, but we would fool ourselves if we refused to acknowledge that the peace that exists in Northern Ireland today remains very much an imperfect peace.
  Terrorist organisations on both the republican and the loyalist side remain firmly intact. Their command and control structures have not been dismantled. Their capacity and capability remain undiminished. Paramilitary beatings and shootings have not ceased. As Mr. John Rowe pointed out in his most recent review of the EPA:
  "Terrorist organisations are active in the following ways: killing, maiming, beating and carrying out assaults; procuring explosives, and constructing and planting and using explosive devices; obtaining money and funds by robbery, intimidation and extortion; and lastly, fomenting disorder".
  Even if the Executive succeeds, as we all must hope that it does, and the main paramilitary groups do decommission, it would still be folly to discount the

  169
  possibility of threats from splinter groups. The history of Irish republicanism is littered with splits. The Omagh bomb, the single worst atrocity of the past 30 years, was carried out by the republican splinter group calling itself the Real IRA.
  We should not underestimate the ability of any of those groups—or, indeed, the so—called loyalist groups-to destabilise Northern Ireland. For those reasons, we strongly support the inclusion of the existing powers contained in the EPA in part VII of the Bill. Equally, in recognition of the fact that we do not want those powers to be retained for longer than is necessary, we agree that they should remain temporary provisions, subject to annual renewal by Parliament.
  That said, the movement in Northern Ireland is overwhelmingly in the right direction and the outlook today more positive than at any time since 1969. Like every hon. Member, we want that process to go on and to succeed, but it is not just from Irish republican, or so—called loyalist, terrorism that the United Kingdom has suffered—the threat from other forms of domestic terrorism and, indeed, from international terrorism, remains potent.
  I do not wish to rehearse those threats in detail, but I refer the House to appendix F of the Lloyd report prepared by Professor Paul Wilkinson, which graphically illustrates their scope and nature. We are all mindful that next week is the 11 th anniversary of the bombing of the PanAm jet over Lockerbie, which resulted in the deaths of 270 people from 21 nations. That atrocity is now the subject of proceedings under Scottish law in the Netherlands.
  I come now to some of the specific provisions in the Bill. Anti-terrorist legislation was introduced to deal with specific and, it was hoped, short-term terrorist threats. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—the first such measure—was passed in response to the Birmingham pub bombings of that year, and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 followed the Diplock commission in Northern Ireland. Both those measures were intended to be temporary but, due to the prolonged terrorist threat, with a few significant revisions they have taken on a permanence that could not have been envisaged.
  The positive developments in Northern Ireland have made it opportune to look again at that legislation, which is why the previous Government invited Lord Lloyd to do so in 1995. We agree entirely with his conclusion—which is the assumption that underpins the Government's approach—that there will remain a continuing need for counter—terrorism legislation in the foreseeable future. That being the case, we therefore also accept Lord Lloyd's opinion—which is, after all, common sense—that we should combine the existing prevention of terrorism and emergency provisions measures into one piece of permanent, UK-wide, legislation.
  I listened to the earlier debate, but the Opposition can broadly accept the Bill's new definition of terrorism designed to cover the range of terrorist activity. However, we may wish to probe it a little in later stages.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deal with the many interventions in the Home Secretary's speech that were to
  170
  do with the nature of terrorism? Often, today's terrorists are tomorrow's statesmen. Various organisations were mentioned, including Greenpeace, the African National Congress and even the Palestine Liberation Organisation. However, is not it impossible for the Government to include in the Bill an exact definition of terrorism that will cover all situations? Must we not allow the Home Office some latitude for good sense?
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is right that terrorism cannot be defined either out of existence or so closely as to cover every eventuality—
  Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: If my right hon. and learned Friend will allow me to complete my sentence, I shall certainly give way to him. I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and that is why I said that the Opposition broadly accept the new definition. In response to the point that I suspect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is about to make, I confirm that we shall nevertheless wish to probe that definition a little later in the Bill's progress through the House.
  Mr. Hogg: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am perfectly prepared to accept that, generally speaking, the Home Office will approach the matter with good sense. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that rights of third parties are also involved. For example, there is the question of raising money for organisations capable of falling within the class of those carrying on acts of terrorism as defined in clause 1. To raise money for that purpose is an offence, and banks and accountants are under a duty to disclose the cash transactions arising from such dealings. To define such activities broadly under clause 1, so that serious injury to property becomes part of the definition, is to court a very serious problem indeed.
  Miss Widdecombe: I have to say to my right hon. and learned Friend that funding terrorist activities should attract the same definition and penalties as perpetrating them. However, I take the point that there is room for further exploration of the definition that we broadly accept but which we are happy to have debated and refined.
  In this context, I note that the Government have inserted the word "serious" before "violence" in the new definition. We hope that that will not be used by some in Northern Ireland to distinguish between so-called punishment attacks—what has been described as internal housekeeping—and wider attacks on the community or security forces. It is our view that they are all acts of terrorism. Even if it were only by a nod, I would have appreciated the Home Secretary signalling that the word "serious" was not to be used to excuse paramilitary or punishment beatings.
  Mr. Straw: We have included the word "serious" in the definition not for any of the reasons suggested by the

  171
  right hon. Lady, but because that was one of the recommendations of Lord Lloyd's report, which states:
  "The existing definition … 'the use of violence for political ends … & could be retained, subject to the addition of the word `serious' before `violence'."
  In a separate section, the report talks about using an FBI definition which uses the phrase "serious violence".
  Miss Widdecombe: I was not suggesting for one moment that the Home Secretary had that distinction in mind. I was asking him whether that definition of "serious" could be used in such a way as to preclude punishment beatings from being caught by the legislation. It is a straightforward question.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady has accepted that it is difficult to be precise about the circumstances. However, if a paramilitary organisation operating in Northern Ireland fits the definition—whether it uses paramilitary beatings or not—it will come within the definition. It is straightforward.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful for that assurance, although we may return to precisely what we are driving at later.
  We agree with the Government that the time has come to remove exclusion orders. They have outlived their practical usefulness and we are not sorry to see them go. We are satisfied that the wider power to exclude or deport is maintained in the Immigration Act 1971.
  We support the inclusion of the separate Northern Ireland provisions in the Bill. We would all like to see a move away from Diplock courts in Northern Ireland back to normal jury trials. Diplock courts are a wholly exceptional arrangement, but the circumstances that gave rise to them remain. Therefore, they are essential to the operation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. We welcome also the fact that the Government have maintained their U-turn from when they were in opposition and retained the system of certifying out offences, rather than adopting a system of certifying in. We believe the current system to be the right one.
  Having agreed with all that, we are not without some concerns about some aspects of the Bill. One of the advantages of the existing prevention of terrorism and emergency provisions legislation being renewed annually is that it has allowed Parliament to scrutinise the exceptional powers contained in that legislation. In addition, the Government and Parliament have benefited enormously from the annual reviews of the legislation. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Mr. John Rowe and his predecessors in this respect.
  As it stands, the Bill offers no mechanism for Parliament to scrutinise the powers that it contains. That is regrettable. We believe that they should be re-examined by Parliament at frequent intervals. We would expect them to be reviewed by an independent expert, such as Mr. Rowe, and to have his report presented to Parliament. We believe that this is an area where accountability to Parliament is essential.
  The Bill proposes to take away the power to approve an application to extend the length of time that a suspect can be held in detention without charge from the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and give it to a judicial authority. The Home Secretary made
  172
  great play of that as a virtue. We remain unconvinced that it is legitimately a judicial function, rather than an Executive one. The decision to extend detention under existing legislation is usually based on intelligence material in the hands of the Executive that cannot be considered appropriate for judicial consideration. The information is often of such a sensitive nature that it cannot be disclosed to a detainee or his legal adviser without compromising the source of the intelligence, thus endangering lives or impeding an investigation.
  By giving that power to a judicial authority, the judiciary would inevitably be seen as part of the investigation and prosecution process, which could bring its independence into question. The problems associated with that seem to be particularly acute in Northern Ireland, where all scheduled offences are tried under the Diplock system—save those that are certified out by the Attorney—General—with a single judge acting as both judge and jury.
  The Home Secretary will be aware that the judiciary in Northern Ireland has always been opposed to taking on such a function. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were to press ahead with this, he would have to overcome the serious practical problem of finding sufficient people in Northern Ireland, which has a small judiciary, willing to serve in such a capacity.
  Doubtless the Home Secretary will justify this move by claiming that the present system is vulnerable to challenge in the European Court. Yet not only has the United Kingdom successfully applied a derogation in respect of article 5(3) of the convention since the Brogan case in 1988, the validity of that derogation was upheld in 1993. The Government could continue to apply that derogation but for the fact that under the Human Rights Act 1998 it will expire anyway in 2005. But that was a matter of policy rather than legal necessity, and we urge the Government to think again.
  We strongly support some aspects of the Bill. We support the new powers to enable the seizure and detention of terrorist cash at borders, and its subsequent forfeiture, as advocated by Lord Lloyd. We also support extending the offence of directing a terrorist organisation from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  In general, we support most of the Bill, but we have serious reservations about the transfer of detention from the Executive to the judiciary. We have some concerns, which have been expressed on both sides of the House, about the adequacy of the definition, although we broadly support it. We are glad that the legislation is being made permanent and that the two Acts are being brought together. We will support the Government in the Lobby, should there be any who press this matter to a Division.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his speech and on his willingness to accept so many interventions. The good humour with which he accepted those interventions showed a degree of rationality that I cannot hope to emulate.
  There are some improvements in the Bill, based on the White Paper. The creation of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission goes some way to meeting some of the problems raised by proscription. The main problem in that connection, which will have to be debated in

  173
  Committee, is that judicial review deals only with the legality of cases, not their merit. I shall be discussing that later.
  I also welcome the decision to have judicial intervention in cases of detention. We campaigned for that for a long time when we were in opposition, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on introducing it. I also welcome the fact that one of our first actions was to get rid of executive detention, which was a polite name for internment without trial. That was one of our undertakings, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that achievement.
  I welcome in particular the decision on exclusion orders and internal exile. Our late colleague, Roger Stott, would have welcomed that decision because, as my right hon. Friend knows, he campaigned long and hard for the withdrawal of that provision.
  On the basis of what is happening in Northern Ireland, I welcome the closure of the Castlereagh detention centre. It has had an unhappy history, with members of both communities suffering torture and beatings there. I look forward to the time when the interrogation centres at Gough barracks and at Strand road police station are closed and when everyone charged with a criminal offence in Northern Ireland is charged under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, not other regulations.
  I welcome much in the Bill, and much that is being dropped. However, I read the Bill in some sorrow and some anger. We appear to have lost a wonderful opportunity to have got rid of a lot of the litter and debris of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland. We could have done without part VII, an opinion shared by the Human Rights Commissioner in Northern Ireland, Professor Brice Dickson. It is particularly sad that we are keeping those provisions because the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was something of a cosmetic version of the old Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922.
  Throughout the existence of Northern Ireland, some special powers have existed. During the first world war, there was the Defence of the Realm Act 1914. After that came the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations 1918, then the 1922 Act and the 1974 Act. The whole history of Ireland since the Union with Ireland Act 1800 has been a history of Acts of coercion. Only in Northern Ireland have such Acts been in continuous operation for more than 70 years.
  Members who were not here in 1974 will not recall the atmosphere when the PTA was introduced. I should like to remind hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, of the situation at that time. There had been an appalling atrocity in Birmingham. It was felt that something had to be done. There was a popular clamour for action. Several arguments were advanced. First, the Government had to be seen to act decisively. Secondly, it was suggested that action was necessary to defend the Irish population in the country, who were being threatened at work, physically abused, having their homes stoned and windows broken and who faced all manner of intimidation and harassment.
  It was felt that the PTA would be helpful, and we were given guarantees that it would exist for only six months. As I said earlier, there was also whispering in the
  174
  Corridors that if we did not introduce the Act, and quickly, we might face the reintroduction of capital punishment. That was the atmosphere of panic, fear and intimidation that then existed as we floundered around wondering what could be done. A Bill already drafted was taken from its pigeonhole and introduced.
  In fact, the temporary Bill has lasted until now, and it will continue in force for the foreseeable future. It is ironic that a Bill introduced to protect the Irish in this country has been used for their intimidation and harassment. There have been many arrests, but few prosecutions and even fewer convictions. It has been used to harry and hinder law-abiding people, both immediate immigrants and people of the second or third generation. A sense of purpose was lost. Far from giving encouragement, succour and security, the measure became one of the most hated pieces of legislation in this country. We are now being asked to maintain it.
  There is always a danger that, in any legal system, there could be two parallel sources, where the same set of facts could result in the employment of two different systems of justice—the only difference would be motivation. If one is caught up under the provisions of the PTA or the EPA, one's legal rights would be far less than if one were detained for what we might describe as an ordinary, decent crime. That cannot be a proper way of dealing with the problem. It is surely not a measure that we should want to have and to hold.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: I realise that other hon. Members have given way to me, but, with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I gave a specific undertaking to the Chair that I would not take up too much time. I should be more than willing to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman in Committee—indeed, I shall be more than delighted to do so.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is frit as usual.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I point out to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is perfectly within his rights not to accept an intervention. Comments such as those made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone from a sedentary position are not really in the spirit of the House.
  Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having spoken from a sedentary position. However, it is well known that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pursues a tedious path in his interpretation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is compounding his offence.
  Mr. McNamara: If the Chair will allow me to forego my promise, I shall willingly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but having given that undertaking, I felt that I should honour it.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He pursues his usual tedious and predictable

  175
  path through the measure. He always talks as though successive Governments have deliberately discriminated against Irish people. It appears that he has no understanding of the terror of the 3,500 people killed or 300 policemen injured. Would the hon. Gentleman balance the remarks in the remainder of his contribution so that we can hear the matter put properly in context?
  Mr. McNamara: I do not need lectures from the hon. Gentleman on how hard the deaths in Northern Ireland have hit home—I have had personal experience. However, I am concerned that we should have a proper system and a proper understanding of the rule of law. The effect of the legislation, especially in the 1970s and the early 1980s, was to alienate a whole community. That is not a good thing.
  We have already discussed the definition of terrorism, so I shall not pursue the points that I had planned to make on that subject. It will be interesting to hear what comes up in Committee on that matter.
  On the front of the Bill, there is a statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Bill does not offend against the European convention on human rights. That is not the opinion of the Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland. At the drop of a hat, the commission found six cases under the EPA provisions. Section 13, on the onus of proof on possession of proscribed articles, is incompatible with the presumption of innocence in article 6 of the convention. Section 20, on the power to enter and search premises without a warrant, is incompatible with the right to respect for private life in article 8.
  Section 25, on the power to stop and question, is incompatible with the right to liberty in article 5(1)(b). Section 30(A), on onus of proof on possession of certain documents, is incompatible with the right to a fair trial in article 6. Section 30A(2), on the evidence of a police officer—that is the stupid legislation that we pushed through after Omagh, in another fit of panic—is incompatible with the right to a fair trial in article 6(3)(d). Section 30A(4), on inferences from silence in respect of membership charges, is incompatible with the right to a fair trial in article 6(1).
  In the prevention of terrorism provisions contained in the new Bill, the Human Rights Commission identified 10 matters that were incompatible with the European convention. Clause 3, on proscription, might be incompatible with article 11 of the convention, which provides for a right of peaceful assembly. Under clause 5 and schedule 3, on the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, judicial review is the first test for appeal. However, following the "gays in the military" case, the European Court said that a judicial review in itself was not sufficient, and that we could go to the merits of the case.
  Clause 18, on the duty to disclose information with reversal of the burden of proof, contravenes article 10—the right to freedom of expression. It also limits press freedom to collect information and relates to sorry circumstances such as the Stephens inquiry's pursuit of Ed Malone of the Sunday Tribune recently. Clause 37, on the tipping-off offence, again reverses the onus. It possibly stifles criticism of the police or security services, and therefore contravenes article 10 of the convention, on freedom of speech.
  Clauses 38 and 39, on powers of arrest, may well contravene article 5(1)(c), which lists the grounds of arrest. It must be remembered that previous Home Secretaries
  176
  have justified that power, not to gain convictions but for fishing expeditions to gain evidence—arresting people not to prosecute them, not even because they were thinking about it, but to try, by questioning, to get information. That was justified by the then Home Secretary, the former European Commissioner Mr. Leon Brittan.
  We then come to schedule 13, paragraphs 2 and 6, on the right of access to lawyers, which can be delayed for up to 48 hours. That contravenes article 6 of the convention. Clause 39 and schedule 7, on the detention of an individual for up to 48 hours, similarly contravenes the convention.
  Clause 42 gives a policeman the power to stop and search anyone that he reasonably believes to be a terrorist. That creates all sorts of problems on the basis of the new, wider definition of terrorism that appears in clause 1. The Bill will leave itself wide open to challenge because a case relating to the narrow, secure and specific definition would be easier to defend before the European Court than would a case that is so broad and so wide in what is being averred.
  Clauses 55 and 56 would make it an offence to possess items that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that they are being used for terrorist purposes. Again the onus of proof has been reversed, breaching article 6(2)—the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Interestingly, in the Stobie case, when Mr. Stobie was charged with the possession of guns and ammunition and had to prove his innocence under the existing legislation, the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the case in the absence of any proof. That was a remarkable decision by the DPP. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should have borne that in mind when he was giving his paean to some public officers in the Stobie case.
  Finally, the Bill would make it an offence to possess information that is likely to be useful to terrorists, and article 10 of the European convention provides a right to receive and impart information without interference from a public body—even if the ideas "shock or disturb" the state.
  I welcomed the incorporation of the convention into our legislation. I believe that it was an important step forward, but I believe that the Home Secretary is being overoptimistic in his statement on the face of the Bill that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights.
  Fortunately for the House, however, such matters will be decided not by the Executive any more but in the courts. We all admire my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's learning, but not only our courts but the court in Strasbourg may decide that the advice that he has received is not well founded. Incorporating the European convention on human rights into our legislation was a courageous act by the Government, and I support them in that. However, the convention is very much a two-edged sword and the Government may find to their cost—I happily say "to their cost"—that they have been given bad advice on this matter. I imagine that many of the issues that I have mentioned will be dealt with in the courts. The court in Strasbourg considers cases in detail and takes them one by one. The blanket approach, as suggested by the Bill, will not apply.
  I have pointed out that the courts will be the final arbiters, but I return to the start of my speech. I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home

  177
  Secretary has approached the matter. In particular, I welcome a statement that he slipped in towards the end of his speech. He said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will set up a committee to see how we can return to jury trials in Northern Ireland. That was a most important statement. However, the return to jury trials can be introduced quite easily. Instead of contracting out cases from scheduled offences, they should be contracted in. The Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General and others argue that doing that would be to take over a role that should be carried out by Parliament. However, contracting something out to have a jury trial also means taking over the role of Parliament.
  Given the current background with the considerable lessening in the number of terrorist offences and the considerable lowering of tensions, we should do everything that we can to encourage a return to jury trials. Contracting in of scheduled offences is the best and easiest way to do that. At present, the authorities say that all scheduled offences are terrorist offences unless we contract them out. Why cannot they say that all offences are honest, decent, criminal offences—if there is such a thing—and those that we suspect of being terrorist offences will be contracted in?
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Tom King: I support the Second Reading of the Bill and I welcome the fact that there will be a permanent Terrorism Act on the statute book. I was struck by references to the origins of previous prevention of terrorism measures, which tended to be in response to outrages. Reference has been made to Birmingham and to Omagh—and I introduced certain measures in the House in response to an outrage at Ballygawley. One of the measures that we introduced at that time was the right, in certain circumstances, to draw inferences from a suspect' s determination to remain silent. For that, I was heavily attacked by Labour Members when they were in opposition, but they moved that principle a bit further in the measures that they introduced in response to Omagh. I do not criticise them for that.
  The contribution of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is living proof of how far the Labour party, which is now in government, has moved. The hon. Gentleman was once the Opposition spokesman whom I had to face across the House. He sang a very different song at that time and spoke on behalf of his party when he did so. I doubt whether the Labour party would now subscribe to many of the views that the hon. Gentleman expressed at that time.
  I declare an interest: I am the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee. In our most recent report, we drew attention to the fact that terrorism is not confined to Northern Ireland and that it will not be happily dealt with by the Good Friday agreement and what has flowed from it. Terrorism is now a global activity which poses many fresh and serious challenges. Terrorism has long existed around the world in domestic situations, but it is now conducted against one country from another. The latter is often a safe haven that offers peace and
  178
  tranquillity for planning, organising and fundraising for some of the outrages that are perpetrated in another country.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that there are fundamental problems with the argument that he is propounding? During the apartheid era in South Africa, it was held that Umkhonto we Sizwe was operating a terrorist regime against the Pretoria Government. The organisation had strong supporters and friends in this country. My understanding is that, under this Bill, the ANC office in London would have been closed down on that basis, and the ANC banned in Britain as a terrorist organisation.
  Mr. King: I shall develop that serious point because it needs to be addressed, but I want first to set the scene.
  There is globalisation of terrorism, facility of movement of funds and equipment, which is almost unpreventable, and the horrific development of technology. The Home Secretary referred to the use of sarin on the underground in Tokyo. Weapons of mass destruction—whether they be nuclear, chemical or biological—have developed to the extent that they offer new possibilities for terrorism, often as much by the threat of their use as by their actual use. Against that background any democratic state must have in place arrangements and facilities to deal with those situations.
  Having had to take some responsibility for these matters in the past, I share the Home Secretary's view that no Government could face their people if they had not taken responsible action to ensure that measures were in place. I recognise not only how quickly public opinion can change and public comment can focus on safeguards and the need always to protect legitimate interests, but how ferocious will be the counter-attack if the Government are seen to have left their people exposed to unacceptable threats and dangers, and not to have taken reasonable and responsible action to protect them. I include that new dimension of terrorism, to which my committee referred in its report, in my consideration of the Bill.
  The issue that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) just raised is precisely the point that I made to the Home Secretary. We are seeking to ensure that we do not allow this country to become a safe haven for those who commit against perfectly democratic countries terrorism of a kind that we would find totally unacceptable. Those countries may be other members of the European Union. It is no secret that because of the outrages that have been committed in Paris, the French Government are extremely critical of us for what they see as providing a haven for Islamic terrorists. I do not imagine that any hon. Member would seek to defend the position of this country being a safe haven for terrorism against legitimate, democratic Governments.
  We then come up against exactly the problem that the hon. Member for Islington, North mentioned: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I intervened on the Home Secretary to make the point about balance, which is one of the principles by which he will determine his actions.
  We are talking, without question, about additional powers, not the normal criminal law. With additional powers must come additional safeguards. I shall not try to

  179
  pronounce in detail what I think the answer should be. The merit of the Committee scrutiny of the Bill is that those issues, which need to be recognised, can be dealt with.
  I shivered momentarily when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was speaking. I went into northern Iraq to support the Kurds there, supported by 45 Commando and a squadron of Tornados. We were attempting to ensure that the Kurds were protected: we encouraged them to take the most violent action to repel any aggression against them by Saddam Hussein and his forces and we provided back-up in the form of air power and a Marine commando. It is an extreme illustration, but I am sure that lawyers would have a field day with such admissions if I were liable to arrest for aiding and abetting a terrorist act against the legitimate Government of another country. I hope that the Serjeant at Arms does not feel the need to make a citizen's arrest for what might be claimed to be a manifest breach of proposed legislation.
  The serious point is that there must be proper safeguards and thorough analysis of what constitutes terrorism. In a private Member's Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)—who, despite what the Home Secretary thinks, is alive and well and still a Member of Parliament—tried to ensure that, to be considered a terrorist act, an act should be legally defined as a terrorist act both in this country and in the country in which the complaint originated. The complexity of that description demonstrates the difficulties that Ministers encounter when trying to strike a balance between obvious acts of terrorism committed against a friendly country, and action that is less easily recognised as terrorism because it takes the form of an act of protest against a regime that we regard as unacceptable and our sympathies reside with the protesters. How that balance is struck will be the business of the Committee on the Bill. I am not able to serve on the Committee, so I look forward to Report to discover how the Committee resolves that important issue. I approve of the Bill in general and believe that the Committee will be able to deal with detailed problems.
  I am not sure that I can fully support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said about judicial approval of an extension order. I used to have to extend orders in respect of people who were held in detention before charges were preferred—indeed, I might have been the Secretary of State who was pilloried in the European Court in Strasbourg after lawyers contended that my giving an extension of seven days before charges needed to be brought was absolutely disgraceful. Therefore, I took an interest in events that occurred at the same time as that case was going on.
  The case coincided with the successful apprehension by the French authorities of a ship called the Eksund, which was loaded with arms and munitions from Libya intended for the IRA. The French arrested the captain and crew and the examining magistrate took charge of proceedings. Around the time that the UK was being criticised for holding a person for seven days before charge on the authority of a Secretary of State, the examining magistrate under French judicial proceedings had the crew of the Eksund held for two years before preferring charges. As I understand it, the examining magistrate granted himself the extension while he assembled the prosecution case.
  180
  It is difficult for our European friends, who operate a completely different system of legal procedures, to believe that it might be right for a politician to make out extension orders. Against that background, I think that the judicial approach is certainly worthy of consideration. I recognise the criticism that can be made of political power being used in this way and the feeling that it could be used improperly. That is something that the Committee might like to examine.
  I warmly support all the references to fundraising in the Bill. I realised too late in my time in Northern Ireland that one of the key elements was to try to get after the funds of the terrorist organisations. That was in addition to trying to stop violence on the streets and prevent terrorist outrages. I set up the anti-rackets unit to try to pursue those funds.
  I remember well—some right hon. and hon. Members may also recall this—an incident when certain people were charged with conspiracy to murder in this country. They were apprehended with some of their equipment in a campsite in Somerset. I recall that they had £4,000 stitched into the wall of their tent. A certain learned and reverend gentleman in Northern Ireland had great doubts about British police arresting decent young Irishmen who were obviously genuine holidaymakers. He thought that they should not have been apprehended in the way that they were. It was the discovery of the money that made him realise that the people concerned were not ordinary tourists or students on vacation. That is a reminder that money is a key ingredient in the obtaining of weapons, transport, the buying of vehicles and the entire paraphernalia on which terrorism depends.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: I shall finish my point.
  Anyone who knows Northern Ireland will be familiar with the incredible infrastructure of black taxis, protection rackets, smuggling and one-armed bandit rigging. The entire operation is backed up in that way. The IRA and other terrorist organisations, including the UVF in its time, saw that funds were an essential element in their activities.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: I shall not give way. I shall be brief.
  I look forward with interest to the outcome of the Committee stage. I strongly support both the provisions that deal with money, fundraising and money laundering, and the Bill in general,
  Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to a case in which it was partially because of statements that he had made in the House that the Court of Appeal overthrew the conviction of those involved. It should be put on the record that those people are innocent as far as the law of this land is concerned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently experienced in the House to know that that is

  181
  not a point of order on which the occupant of the Chair can rule. It is a matter of debate. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) felt unable to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the record, I said "for which people were charged".
  5.28 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I asked earlier to be allowed to speak in the debate, but, owing to a terrible cold, I had not prepared myself. That is why I looked slightly taken aback when you called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Forgive me.
  I do not join in right hon. and hon. Members' welcome for the introduction of permanent prevention of terrorism legislation, because it suggests that, in a way, the terrorists have won. I accept that there have been circumstances in which it has been necessary to suspend the protection of human rights, as guaranteed in international legislation and in other ways, effectively to investigate and prosecute activities conducted by terrorist organisations. In a way, they want that to happen, and that is part of the problem.
  The best form of prosecution and prevention is through the robust mechanisms of the usual laws to prevent the activities of such organisations. Then, there is no risk of their being able to portray the state as oppressive and as suspending their human rights, and themselves as victims of an oppressive state.
  Unlike many hon. Members, therefore, I am disappointed that we have had to take permanent legislative powers to deal with the matter. One of the important reasons why there has not been more careless use of the temporary legislation that we have had hitherto is that it is regularly renewed and regularly debated by the House. I welcomed the request from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that the reports by Mr. Rowe QC should be continued if we have permanent legislation. I would welcome a commitment from my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to the continuation of that reporting mechanism.
  We must be sensitive to the degrees of suspension of human rights incorporated in the Bill's provisions. I cannot believe that it was not without careful reflection that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed the undertaking, under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which appears on the front of the Bill. I suspect that he may have given the British courts some interesting challenges in the future in carrying out their duty to read the Bill, if it survives in its present form, in a way that conforms with that Act.
  I have a particular concern about clause 18, which imposes a duty to report suspicions. For example, journalists may be reluctant to investigate issues relating to terrorism because the Bill places on them the onus to report matters that are only suspicions. I am deeply worried about how that might be interpreted in future.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is entirely right, and her point applies to banks and accountants, too. If they have reason to suppose that an organisation might fall within the organisations that are conducting terrorism as defined
  182
  by clause 1, they are under a duty to report. They might conclude that they should make a report on any organisation that advocated violence against property—for example, Greenpeace.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Indeed. We know from recent activities—for example, the campaigning against the Seattle round, and Stop the City—that there are organisations that have within their sphere of influence and activity people who are certainly democrats, with legitimate aspirations to influence policy, as well as people who are not. It is in respect of such groups that the danger of the legislation biting wrongly and seriously interfering with fundamental human rights and liberties becomes most serious.
  The Home Secretary showed us, in a certain piece of legislation, what I consider to be the best way of dealing with terrorism. I refer to the legislation that he introduced to ensure that the sentences of those who were prosecuted for offences could be increased when a racial motive was involved. It is right for such people to be subject to heavier sentences, because of the terrorising effect of racism on black and other ethnic minority communities. I feel that, in many instances, the legislative response to terrorism is enforced most effectively at the point of sentencing when the fact that the impact of the terror extends to more people than the victim is significant, and must be taken into account.
  Mr. Hogg: That is an ingenious argument, but it comes up against the problem that the most serious offence is murder, which incurs a mandatory life sentence. It is not possible to impose a heavier sentence than that.
  Fiona Mactaggart: That is true; but I believe that, if part of the Bill's aim is to prevent terrorism as well as detecting it, we must understand the way in which the politics of terror operate. Part of that operation is the terrorising of communities, the limiting of their capacity for action, and making people believe that the democratic route to solving problems is not a route that will work. Many terrorists—individuals and organisations—are pleased when the state takes steps to restrain and restrict them which have the effect of restraining and restricting, for example, peaceful assembly, because that rewards terrorists. It is a tempting option for a state, especially as many terrorists do not care about the consequences of their actions, and do devastating things such as blowing up themselves as well as others.
  That is why I see merit in temporary rather than permanent legislation. There are times—many of us have lived through them in this country—when the impact of terrorist activity is so significant that people's conduct of their daily business is restricted. When terror already exists in the community, the use of police cordoning powers and wider investigative powers is entirely appropriate. We should not forget, however, that the use of such powers is itself terrorising in a sense.
  Mr. Maginnis: Nonsense.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I am not saying that it is deliberately terrorising, but it is terrorising in a sense. I remember the terror that I felt when I went into the City and saw police officers wearing flak jackets and carrying machine guns. I was frightened, and I think that many

  183
  others were as well. Although such a response is sometimes necessary to deal with the activities of terrorists, it must be proportionate: it must never become the normal run of things. If it does, that will be a victory for the terrorists.
  As I have said, I see merit in temporary provisions. There is merit in, for example, the response of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to the White Paper. The commission suggested that there should be staged measures: it suggested, for instance, that powers should exist in the first place to deal with money laundering involving proscribed organisations, but that other powers should be triggered by the degree of terror. We should reflect on whether all the powers in the Bill need to be permanent.
  The most difficult task of any politician is to defend the civil rights of a terrorist, because terrorists have no interest in the civil rights of the rest of humanity. However, we should ensure that their civil rights are protected because that is the best way in which to reduce their support, and, if we can catch them while protecting their human and civil rights, we can create a society in which politics flourishes and terror does not.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), not least to congratulate her on speaking from a background of adversity. I welcome the main thrust of her speech, which was an argument against permanent legislation.
  When I took up my new responsibility of looking after home affairs for my party, one of my first tasks was to consider the sort of legislation that my party believed should be on the statute book. That task was, effectively, to devise the home affairs part of an alternative Queen's Speech. Like the Government, we drew up a long list. One of the measures that I proposed and which my colleagues accepted was one on counter-terrorism.
  We believe that we should codify and simplify existing exceptional legislation on terrorism, repeal unnecessary measures, especially the sort of legislation that we passed last year in haste, and ensure regular scrutiny of counter-terrorist legislation on a United Kingdom-wide basis. We approach the debate from that perspective. We support a United Kingdom-wide Bill. We also support reconsidering a series of existing temporary measures and bringing them together. However, we have fundamental anxieties about the Government's conclusion to that process.
  Although we will vote for Second Reading of the Bill, we have tabled a motion that would provide for a Special Standing Committee to consider it. In such a Committee, Members of Parliament can take evidence before examining the Bill line by line. We believe that exceptional measures require exceptional scrutiny. The fact that a consultation process has occurred is not a sufficient defence for rejecting the motion. In the previous Session, a Special Standing Committee considered the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which deals with exceptional problems. I hope that colleagues from other parties will join us in trying to persuade the Government that a Special Standing Committee should consider the measure.
  My approach to the Bill is based on a variety of reflections. I have a background as a lawyer and I have worked in the Council of Europe, dealing with appeals
  184
  against the United Kingdom Government from individuals who complained of violations of human rights under the emergency legislation. I went to school with people who went on to serve in Northern Ireland and were badly injured—including some who were unable to work properly again. My brother served in Northern Ireland, including in Omagh. I represent a constituency in the London docklands where people were killed by terrorists. I am also the Member of Parliament who represents Liberty—formerly the National Council for Civil Liberties—which has always been vigilant in ensuring that we carefully protect the liberties of our citizens and never overreact. Like others, I have been a member of the anti-apartheid movement. I was conscious that we were supporting people who were out of power, some of whom had engaged in terrorist activities as they were then defined, but I was none the less willing to support them at the time.
  I come to the debate conscious that we still have no written constitution, although grateful that the Government have legislated for the European convention on human rights to become part of domestic law, as it will in October next year. I also remember how we have so often reacted to events, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) reminded us. Last September's recall of Parliament, which was a reaction to the Omagh bombing, provided the latest bad legislative example: we acted in haste and, as a result, introduced legislation that we are not only returning to, but which was clearly seen to be defective at the time. Parliament was recalled for two days of business during the recess and against the background of a threatened guillotine motion, so it was always unlikely that we would get the legislation right.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Slough has more importance, not only because it is theoretically right, but because the experience of the House is that we must ensure that we are able to look at legislation again. I say to colleagues that we must not put on the statute book exceptional measures with no mechanism for Parliament to reconsider them. My hon. Friends and I will argue that there should be not only special examination of the Bill in Committee, but a provision whereby the legislation would lapse once a Parliament to allow us to review, re-enact or amend it.
  In an article in today's edition of The Guardian, the Home Secretary says that terrorism changes readily, often and quickly, which is why we need to be able to respond periodically and why we should not assume that, once we have legislated today, that will do for all our tomorrows. That well-worn saying, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" applies particularly to such Bills as this one, and in our view we must not just do our business and pass the legislation, thinking that that will suffice. As a postscript, I should add that once a Parliament would normally be the right frequency for a substantive reconsideration of the legislation, but we also ask for the annual report procedures—which have been used recently for temporary provisions—to be implemented so that a report can be made to the House on the workings of what are exceptional provisions in law.
  Mr. McNamara: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that it might be better to provide for the report to go to

  185
  the Home Affairs Committee? That would allow for better in-depth examination of the issues than might be achieved in an hour and a half debate after 10 o'clock at night.
  Mr. Hughes: I am always of the view that reports should go first to the relevant Select Committee and that the House should then consider matters after colleagues in those Committees have had more time to look at the details. I support that argument, but the Bill should certainly come back to Parliament for consideration regularly because we may want to amend it. As the hon. Member for Slough said, it is also better to know that the legislation will return to the House for review because that provides a useful check against misuse of legislative powers that we would otherwise have no means to change through Parliament without a Government's assent.
  We welcome some measures in the Bill, such as the repeal of the exclusion order provisions. Although my party sometimes did otherwise, I never voted for them and I always considered that they were wrong. Ours is one country or it is not, and excluding people from one part of Britain from another part of it always struck me as fundamentally wrong. I know that colleagues on the Ulster Unionist Benches and others took that view. We made a terrible mistake by going down that road and I am glad that it is being put right, albeit belatedly.
  We share the Government's view—it was supported in measured terms by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater—that special powers should no longer be subject to ministerial review but to judicial review. There are exceptional circumstances in Northern Ireland and differences that I entirely understand, but in general terms special powers should be subject to independent review which is not conducted by the Executive.
  We entirely agree that there should be a less piecemeal approach, that UK legislation should be considered as a whole and that everything that is defined as terrorism should be dealt with at the same time and not in different legislation.
  The Bill includes specific provisions for Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has left the Chamber briefly to attend the Welsh Grand Committee, but he may say a word or two about that. We support the proposal that there should be a temporary continuation of additional special powers in Northern Ireland, ideally with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the confidence of the community in Northern Ireland as political and other normality returns. I hope to visit Northern Ireland to talk to representatives of all parties to reassure myself that the progression from unusual provisions such as the Diplock courts to normality is made with the maximum consensus. Five years seems to be the right time scale for such changes to be made; if that can be achieved more quickly that is welcome, nevertheless the provision in the Bill is the right one.
  We see the Government's proposal that the Northern Ireland powers should lapse after five years as an argument in favour of our suggestion that there should be a general five-year review. The Government accept that certain powers should continue for a temporary period. We consider that that condition should apply to all powers and that they all should be subject to regular review.
  The debate has already highlighted several key issues, the most important of which is the definition of terrorism. It is true, as the Home Secretary rightly said, that the Bill
  186
  does not create a new offence of terrorism. Clauses 1 and 38 define certain activities as terrorist activities which require special responses from the state.
  It is absolutely clear, however, that the Bill changes the definition of terrorism as understood by the man or woman in the street. The New Oxford Dictionary definition is probably the one that they would understand. It defines terrorism as
  "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
  Previous legislation has defined terrorism in different ways. Both the substantive Acts that are repealed by the Bill include the same phraseology. I repeat it because it is important to recognise that we are moving a long way from the present legislation. According to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998, terrorism:
  "Means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public in fear."
  The Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 describes terrorism as follows:
  "Acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto."
  It addresses activities aimed at the powers of the state and having political ends.
  Lord Lloyd's report took the definition further, but not as far as the Government now propose. The independent review of the legislation stopped far short of the Government's proposals. Lord Lloyd proposed the FBI definition of terrorism as
  "the use of serious violence against persons or property, or the threat to use such violence, to intimidate or coerce a government, the public or any section of the public in order to promote political, social or ideological objectives."
  I ask the House to reflect on whether it is right to go as far as the Government do in clause 1, which mentions "use or threat" and thereby extends the definition of terrorism. It refers to
  "a political, religious or ideological cause",
  serious violence against people or property and activities that not only endanger lives, but create
  "risks to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public".
  We should tread most carefully when extending the legislation from crimes against the state to crimes against individuals and still more carefully if we extend it further to crimes against property.
  Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In their definition of terrorism, the Government are addressing not only the intent of an individual, but consequences that may not be intended.
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct and I shall address his point in a moment.
  It is also difficult to define an offence by motivation. To say that a cause is political, religious or ideological poses many questions. For example, does the provision cover deluded religious fanatics who think that they are hearing voices? Does it cover people who are mad,

  187
  schizophrenic or paranoid or who believe that they are doing something for ideological reasons? How much does it take into account different degrees of sanity?
  When a Bill applies to such a broad category it tends to cover a broad sweep of potential activities. It also becomes extremely difficult to define those activities. It is clearly possible that an environmentalist attacking a field of corn in Lincolnshire would be caught under the Bill as would someone causing serious damage to an animal laboratory in Oxfordshire—even if there were no human being in it—or someone attending a meeting in any of our constituencies at which someone spoke claiming to support a freedom struggle in a democratic country. If we go down that road we will be asking for trouble for ourselves for our reputation as a democracy.
  Mr. Maginnis: Is not the hon. Gentleman taking his argument to the point of being ridiculous? Nobody has suggested that terrorism could be predicated on the basis of a mad person or a zealot using violence on another member of the community. Does not terrorism involve groups of people carrying out organised terrorist activities?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman states what the public think terrorism is and I agree with him. I share his understanding of what terrorism laws should address, but that is not what the Bill says. I am happy to spend time discussing these matters with the hon. Gentleman and our Northern Ireland colleagues as they, above all, deserve our support to make sure that we get the law right. The Bill, however, deals with groups of as few as three people meeting in private. The Bill specifically also does not limit itself to the sort of activity with which, tragically, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and his colleagues have had to deal every day. If we are to do anything, we will have to ensure that the House and the country have legislation that can adequately deal with the sort of tragic circumstances that Northern Ireland, above all, has suffered from for so long, but without at the same time accidentally or on purpose sweeping in all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with such terrorist activity.
  Mr. Corbyn: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He made the point that someone could be arrested in this country under a criminal charge for speaking at a meeting if that person were deemed to be speaking in support of a terrorist organisation against a democratic regime. The problem with that is: how does one define a democratic regime? Many Governments claim an electoral mandate for their activities, yet repress human rights disgracefully. They would claim to be democratic; their opponents would not. Does he not agree that there is a serious problem? Unless we define what we are actually dealing with, we will end up proscribing people whom we do not like or agree with.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct. My simplistic definition between democracy and non-democracy tried to make the argument even more bald, but there are many grey areas. One of the things that we did not hear a word about from the Home Secretary was who he might be thinking of proscribing. I give the hon. Gentleman an example.
  188
  My constituency includes a small but significant number of people from Sri Lanka. I have in my constituency—it is not a secret building—the office of Tamil Eelam in London. I have been to its meetings. I have talked to Sinhalese Sri Lankans and to Tamil Sri Lankans.
  If I go to the headquarters of Tamil Eelam in my constituency for a public meeting that is attended by more than three people and people there support the Tamil Tigers in Jaffna, they could potentially be proscribed and suddenly fall within the ambit of the Bill. The presence of anyone at that meeting would be sufficient to render them guilty of an offence, with all the exceptional powers and penalties associated with that.
  It is not just groups from Sri Lanka. It could be groups from Pakistan or Burma or groups representing half the globe at any particular time. Many of those countries are not democratic. They certainly include Burma. One could by no stretch of the imagination believe that that country is a democratic regime.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman had better be even more careful than he has been already. If the Tamil Eelam people ask him for money, they are committing, at least potentially, an offence under clause 14. If he were to give them that money, he would commit an offence under clause 14(3). It is precious little consolation to him to know that he will not be prosecuted unless the Director of Public Prosecutions agrees. It is all on the discretion of an individual.
  Mr. Hughes: Early in its stages, the debate is showing that the proposals need the most careful scrutiny, to put it at its mildest.
  The clause 38 definition of terrorist takes in clause 10, which deals with membership of proscribed organisations, and clause 11, which deals with people inviting support for proscribed organisations, including—I pick up the point—private meetings of three or more people. Someone may be guilty through association even with someone who is not a member of a proscribed organisation, but who alleges that he is.
  The definition also takes in clause 14, which deals with the fundraising provisions to which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred; clause 15, which is about use of money or other property; clause 16, which is about other arrangements; clause 17; clause 52, which is about instruction and training; and clauses 54, 55 and 56. There is a range of implications from the proposed definition of terrorism.
  The hon. Member for Slough and others have made the point that clause 18 will make someone guilty if that person discovers something about activities in support of terrorism and says nothing. If that clause goes on to the statute book, many journalists will be guilty without having done any more than that.
  Clauses 38 and 39, which deal with arrest and stop-and-search procedures, were originally enacted before the current criminal law arrangements for arrest, stop and search applied. There are strong police arguments that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is sufficient. We should not need another extension of the removal of liberty for such purposes because we have new legislation in the general criminal law.

  189
  Nearly last but not least—it has not yet been mentioned—part VI contains provisions on the possession of articles or membership lists—for example, lists of the Cabinet, as happened on one occasion. Under the Bill, the reversal of the burden of proof presumption will still apply in relation to the collection of information. Five years ago, the current Attorney-General, when Opposition home affairs spokesman in the other place, said that those provisions were far too harsh and draconian. No less a person than the Lord Chief Justice said last year that the provisions, in a
  "blatant and obvious way undermined the presumption of innocence."
  All those proposals are in the Bill.
  Finally, the incitement proposals will catch people who associate themselves with organisations in other countries. As was said earlier, that might have included the ANC 30 years ago, or others today.
  I hope that I have shown that my party is clear that we need legislation and that it should be on a United Kingdom-wide basis, with every citizen treated the same. The Bill looks as though it is going too far in favour of the state and away from liberty.
  I pay tribute to the people of Northern Ireland. All of us want to make it clear that the least we can do is to recognise their sacrifice, that of their police service and the armed services, who have given their lives when terrorism, which is unacceptable and never justified here, was carried out. We must have a strong law against terrorism, but it must be the right law.
  As the right hon. Gentleman for Bridgwater said, additional powers need additional safeguards. Legislation with additional powers needs additional scrutiny. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support our proposal that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee and that the Government, who have suggested that they are not absolutely opposed to that option, feel able to support it by 10.15 this evening. In any event, I hope that, by the time the Bill comes out of Committee, we will not have put on to the statute book in haste a Bill that may cause us, and many of our citizens, to repent at leisure.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before I came to the debate, I attended a pensioners function at the Islington Irish centre in my constituency. I was there briefly. One person was treated, correctly, as a welcome guest—it was Gerry Conlon, one of the Guildford Four. He spent more than half his life in British prisons for an offence that he did not commit, on the basis of evidence that was collected after the first arrest of a person under the prevention of terrorism Act—Paul Hill. Subsequently, the other three so-called members of the group were arrested, charged and imprisoned. It took an enormous campaign to get them out of prison.
  The PTA was rushed through the House in 1974 in the wake of the appalling events in Birmingham. It was seen to be temporary and a solution to the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) has pointed out to me, it was supposed last for six months, but, 24½ years later, it is being renewed in a permanent
  190
  form—perhaps in an even more draconian form—by the Bill that the House is being asked to give a Second Reading to today.
  Few people were charged successfully under the PTA, and the number charged at all was small. Indeed, the number convicted was tiny. In fact, the Act always had a more sinister role, in that it allowed people to be questioned and investigated.
  I was first elected to this House in 1983. My constituency includes a large number of Irish people. There was often a sense of terror among the community when people travelling from Belfast or Dublin failed to arrive, because it was feared that they were being held for questioning under the PTA. To find out from the police at Paddington Green or in Belfast whether a person had been arrested involved a labyrinthine procedure. Often, the police did not own up to arresting someone. When asked whether a certain person was being held, officers would answer, "I can't say." The next question would be, "How many people are you holding at the moment?" The police officer would say, "I don't know, I think it's only one."
  Leon Brittan, the former Home Secretary, in a 1985 interview on Radio Telefis Eireann, defended the PTA and said that it was used not for prosecution, but to gain information through questioning people. However, the vast majority of those questioned under the Act did not have access to legal representation. They were held incommunicado and their families did not know what was happening to them.
  The PTA was a disgraceful piece of legislation that did much to damage civil liberties throughout the United Kingdom, not just in Northern Ireland. It caused this country an awful lot of problems on the world stage. We are being asked to approve a Bill that will make permanent most of the PTA's faults. That is extremely regrettable.
  It is also regrettable that the Bill flies in the face of the general thrust of the Government's proclaimed legislative programme on civil liberties and human rights. There are Bills on freedom of information and on human rights, and the European convention on human rights is being incorporated into British law. From next year, all the case law of the European Court of Human Rights will be incorporated into British case law. That is welcome and it represents a good step forward, but there are two aberrations—the rushed legislation following the abominable acts in Omagh in August 1998, and this Bill.
  In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary quoted Lord Lloyd's 1988 review of the legislation, in which it was stated that legislation against terrorism should approximate as closely as possible to ordinary criminal law and procedure. However, this Bill goes much further, and its implications are much more far reaching than those of any other legislation. We should pause and think clearly about that.
  The Bill will get its Second Reading; both Front Benches are agreed on that. The Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment proposing that the Bill be referred to a Special Standing Committee, and I support that. However, Members who are asked to agree proposals that will have a serious effect on the human rights of people in this country—and, by implication, of people all over the world—should stop for a moment's serious thought about those proposals. I shall return to that matter and the enormous effects internationally that have been demonstrated in numerous examples.

  191
  As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) noted, the Bill contains no provision for review. The original 1974 Act provided for a six-monthly review: accordingly, debates were held in the House every six months, after which Labour Members would religiously vote against renewal on the ground that the Act threatened civil liberties. I do not know what has changed between May 1997 and now that allows some of the most draconian provisions of the PTA to be acceptable, when they were unacceptable before.
  Clause 1 offers a definition of terrorism that is much broader than any previous definition. It includes religious threats and threats to property, and it is not clear how wide its scope is. That requires careful thought. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the international implications are enormous. Dozens of meetings are held in my constituency each year by various international solidarity groups. The countries involved include Sri Lanka, Peru, South Africa, China, Tibet, Korea and Indonesia. In addition, meetings have been held by groups from most of the countries of Latin America.
  Many people speak at those meetings and express sympathy for the armed insurrection or other action taking place in the country involved. Are those people, or the ones attending such meetings, to be criminalised? Fellow speakers at the same meeting may not endorse military or armed action against a regime, but will they be criminalised, too? My understanding of the Bill is that they will. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that it was not his wish to criminalise such people, and I accept that, but he will not be Home Secretary for ever.
  Audrey Wise rose—
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Mr. Corbyn: I am spoilt for choice. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston.
  Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend recall that for many years it was Labour party policy to supply arms to the African National Congress? Help was not confined to silent consent, but extended to aid in the armed struggle.
  Mr. Corbyn: I recall the resolution to set up the southern Africa solidarity fund being passed at a party conference in the early 1970s. It included no definition of where the money would go or how it was to be used. However, the clear implication was that it would be used to support the opposition in South Africa to the apartheid regime.
  Mr. Hogg: I support the hon. Gentleman in this matter. He has described solidarity groups, whose function is to raise money. Clause 14 makes it plain that a person invited to give money is committing an offence. It is no good saying that such people would be prosecuted only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The very fact that there is a possibility that an offence might be committed will deter people from inviting money or contributing money. To that extent, the Bill diminishes civil rights regardless of whether there is a prosecution.
  Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct: that is what clause 14 will do. Indeed, I observed
  192
  the effects of the 1974 Act on the Irish community where I live. It diminished political debate because people were afraid of being picked up and held under the PTA provisions.
  I was a union official at that time, looking after a substantial number of Irish members. Many of them were detained—erroneously, as it turned out—under the PTA. Their experience was so frightening that many have not recovered. That is why I maintain that we must think very carefully before passing measures such as those proposed in the Bill.
  Mr. McNamara: Does not my hon. Friend recall that many thousands of people held at ports and airports under the PTA were never charged? The Bill will allow that practice to continue.
  Mr. Corbyn: That is true but, as they were not charged, it is unclear where those many thousands of people appear in the statistics pertaining to the PTA. Constituents of mine who have been held for periods of between half an hour and two hours have been told that they are answering questions. The words "prevention of terrorism Act" have been uttered, but, as no formal process has ever been established, there is no certainty that they ever appear in any statistics.
  Article 11 of the European convention provides that people have a right of peaceful assembly and association throughout Europe. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he had received no legal opinion to the effect that the Bill would be outwith the convention's scope, or that any of its provisions could be declared illegal under the convention.
  I am not a lawyer, and I am not legally qualified, but I beg to differ. Many sections of European human rights law give rights of assembly and of political debate and organisation that are far greater than those specifically proscribed in the Bill. My right hon. Friend defended the Bill by saying that there remains an avenue for judicial review, but that is simply not good enough.
  Although I am not a lawyer, I know that a judicial review is a review of a decision to determine whether it was made correctly in law. It is not a review of the decision, but of the quality of the decision and the way in which it was made. Therefore, it is not a defence for the Home Secretary to say that there is access to judicial review. There is access to judicial review for almost anything, if it can be brought to court. That is not the same as a right of appeal against a decision. The emergency powers on arrest—particularly in clauses 34 and 35 and schedule 7—would appear to be contrary to the international obligations to which this country has signed up willingly.
  I am concerned also about the access to legal representation. I opened my remarks by talking about what happened when the PTA was passed, and the way in which people could be held for a considerable time without charge, trial or access to lawyers. We are going beyond that in denying people access to legal representation for 48 hours. Under existing legislation, it can be for only 36 hours under exceptional circumstances. We should be extremely careful about that.
  Once the authorities start arresting people and denying them access to legal representation, all sorts of other things can happen—including the most appalling

  193
  transgressions, which can become the most appalling miscarriages of justice. Some of the victims of those miscarriages of justice in this country were victors, in the sense that they were freed, such as Judith Ward, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and a number of others. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was set up to deal with the question of the right of access to law. No such thing appears to apply in the Bill.
  I am concerned about the international implications of clauses 57, 58 and 59. I have a list of organisations that are proscribed by the US State Department. It includes a vast number of organisations with weird and wonderful titles, some of which I have never heard of, and a number of which I know for certain no longer exist. Interestingly enough—given that the list comes from the United States—not one Irish organisation is listed. The Kosovo Liberation Army was removed from the list, as it was transformed from a terrorist organisation into a liberation force in record time. Many other organisations have taken many years to achieve that change in status.
  We must be clear on what could happen. This country prides itself on its tradition of granting rights of political asylum for people to pursue a political agenda for their own country in Britain. The borough that I have the honour to represent is full of such people. Today, I had a long chat with some Italians about Garibaldi, who lived in Islington for a while—as did many others. They all pass through; some of us stay.
  Mr. McNamara: Some become Prime Minister.
  Mr. Corbyn: Some stay on the Back Benches, and are happy with that. Biscuits were named after Garibaldi.
  Under the Bill, Garibaldi would be locked up as quick as anything, as he was calling for armed insurrection and the overthrow of the Government in Italy. He was successful, and went back and achieved that. Sun Yat Sen, who campaigned against the Chinese Emperor, would have been culpable under the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to Sri Lanka. I have been to many meetings concerned with the efforts to bring peace to Sri Lanka. If we are to get a peace process in Sri Lanka, we have to reckon with the Tamil Tigers—it cannot be achieved without negotiations with them. Under the Bill, such groups could become illegal and proscribed organisations in Britain, so that peace discussions would be impossible here—and, very rapidly, elsewhere.
  My constituency includes many Kurdish and Turkish people. The PKK is a significant force. It has declared a cease fire in Turkey, but it could be argued that it is a terrorist organisation. Certainly the Turkish Government would argue that. They would argue that there is evidence that the PKK has plotted armed insurrection in Turkey and, therefore, it could be declared illegal here. What are we to do then? Are we to ban, deport or imprison these people? What would that do to bring about a resolution of the dreadful conflict in Turkey?
  There must be political solutions, as has been recognised in Northern Ireland and South Africa. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) did not seem able to answer my question of whether, had the Bill been in force in the 1960s and 1970s, the ANC offices in
  194
  my borough at that time would have been closed down. Would the ANC have been deemed to be a terrorist organisation because of its obvious links with the struggle that Umkhonto we Sizwe was waging within South Africa? There are many other examples.
  Ministers say that this is okay because they are going to proscribe only organisations which oppose democratic regimes. That is a difficult area to define. I am not in sympathy in any way with what Sendero Luminoso has done in Peru, or the way in which it has carried out its struggle. Sendero Luminoso, or its representatives here, would argue that the Peruvian Government are not a democratic organisation because they suspended the constitution and carried out their war against that organisation.
  Sendero Luminoso would argue that it is democratic. We might argue that it is not. We could then end up banning that organisation from having any representatives in Britain because it is opposed to a democratic Government, when there is plenty of evidence that the Government are not that democratic in the first place. There are many other such examples to be found all over the world.
  We should think more carefully and more seriously about this issue, because otherwise we will end up putting people on trial because their own Governments want us to do that. We will then get into the murky area of the commercial links that these regimes have with companies in this country, and the pressure on the British Government to achieve higher export earnings. I remember the campaign mounted in this House by Conservative Members against opposition elements from Saudi Arabia because they were more interested in defence contracts with that country than in human rights there. That could apply to many other countries around the world.
  The Bill has been proposed without the necessary thought. It has the support of both Front Benches, which usually makes me suspicious and should make everybody careful. If we are serious about democracy, accountability and a due process of law, this is no way to achieve that. It is the opposite direction to that of the Freedom of Information Bill, human rights law and the European convention on human rights.
  I recognise that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, but I hope that it will be committed to a Special Standing Committee, to which the amendment invites us to agree. Above all, I hope that there will be some significant changes because we are in danger of putting on to the statute book some draconian legislation—far more draconian than any of the temporary provisions that have been rushed through this House during previous crises. We are not in a crisis at the moment, so surely it is time to do something far more rational and sane than what is proposed this evening.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is strange that so many hon. Members here tonight have referred to terrorism as though it were something new, rather than something which goes back to time immemorial. Terrorism, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been with us for as long as there has been history.
  In recent times, we have been brought to our senses by 30 years of terrorism emanating from that part of the United Kingdom in which I live. It gives me no

  195
  satisfaction to say that this should not be seen as extraordinary or special legislation, but rather as necessary legislation within any democracy if we wish to protect that democracy—a democracy that has evolved over centuries to bring us to this point.
  If we had not dealt with terrorism and potential terrorism at the start, we might have found ourselves in situations of escalating violence, such as the violence that occurs in parts of the Balkans or between the Hutus and Tutsis in Africa. The difficult decisions taken in this House meant that terrorism in Northern Ireland did not reach such awful proportions. Those decisions may not have been popular; they may have impacted on what I considered were my civil rights, but they were taken to keep two traditions from carrying out greater acts of violence than has been the case over the past 30 years. The legislation isolated the men of violence on both sides.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: Not at this stage—later on I will.
  I welcome the way in which the Government have sought to combine the EPA and PTA in the Bill. It helps me, as someone living in Northern Ireland, to feel part of the United Kingdom. Ninety per cent. of the community—the ordinary, decent people who live normal lives—do not want to feel that they are somehow pariahs within the United Kingdom because they have had to deal with the terrorism that emanates from both traditions in Northern Ireland.
  Governments have had to recognise that terrorism has changed vastly over 30 years. I first encountered terrorism 40 years ago. As a young schoolteacher, just out of college, I was in the midst of what was known as the 1956-62 campaign. There were very few cars on the roads in those days, and young people did not have access to transport. There was no internet 40 years ago and no mobile phones—indeed, very few people had phones at home.
  Terrorists then were most obliging. When they were caught, as they invariably were, they went to the courts, lined up like turkeys volunteering for Christmas, said that they did not recognise the courts and were put in prison for a few years. Many were allowed out early—all they had to do was sign a declaration that they would not get involved in terrorism again, and out they came.
  I am afraid that the changes over those 40 years have been considerable. Now the means to communicate, move around the country and organise are more sophisticated. The Government have an almost impossible task. They must enact legislation that ensures the integrity of the police, and of society as a whole. The legislation must also be flexible enough to cope with the terrorists exploitation of the law and the judicial system. It must be able to cope with the violence of terrorism, the racketeering and the money laundering—with everything that would substitute anarchy for democracy.
  The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke of his delight that Castlereagh is closing as a holding centre. It may surprise him to hear that I, too, am pleased that it is closing, but for a different reason. It is not because I saw Castlereagh as a threat to me or to the majority of people, but because the level of violence in Northern Ireland is decreasing. Castlereagh is no longer needed. Excesses may have occurred—when people are
  196
  fearful and have a responsibility to deal with those who are conditioned to resist the normal processes of law, there can be excesses—but they were consistently dealt with as they arose.
  The real issue about Castlereagh is that hundreds of lives were saved because of the work done in the holding centres—the detection, charging and convicting of terrorists. We always hear about the charges and convictions that were wrong. About 400 terrorists, give or take a couple of score, have just been released from the Maze.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maginnis: The reality is that those people were convicted because of the work done in places such as Castlereagh by a police force constantly under criticism from people who should know better but who have, and have always had, green-tinted spectacles. They are tedious in their defence of what is wrong without seeking to recognise the victims of the terrorist. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman suffers from the tedium of others a great deal. I hope that I can help him in that respect.
  Did all the legislation on Northern Ireland—the EPA and the PTA—and factors such as internment and stop-and-search powers bring about a peace settlement? Or was it ultimately a process of engagement and a recognition of the traditions of both communities? Was it not the political process over the past four years that brought about a peace process and, we hope, a permanent peace in Northern Ireland, rather than all the repressive legislation that so damaged civil liberties and imprisoned so many innocent people?
  Mr. Maginnis: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask me a rather more difficult question. Each measure that he mentioned was necessary in its time. He seems to forget that 80 per cent. of all planned terrorist activity was frustrated by the action that was taken within the law that was available to the police and members of the Army.
  It was in 1990, after going on the streets to boast, "20 years and not defeated", that Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, saw the reality of the situation. Twenty years and not being defeated did not mean that it was ever going to win. It was encouraged, bit by bit, to move towards the political process. I do not, like some people, regret its involvement in the political process. I hope that it can carry that to its logical conclusion and give up the guns, bombs and threats that have sustained it for the past 30 years but have brought heartbreak to my part of this kingdom. If it can do so, I, unlike the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), will not regret it.
  I mention the hon. Member for Belfast, East only because it is unavoidable when one talks about attitudes towards the police, the law, the Army and terrorism. The hon. Gentleman and his ministerial colleague from the Democratic Unionist party, Mr. Dodds, yesterday tried a publicity gimmick which they must have thought would detract from the real business in Armagh. Ministers from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic sat down as

  197
  democrats, none having authority over another, to decide how they might mutually act in the best interests of both the jurisdictions on the island.
  However, the hon. Member for Belfast, East boycotted this process and could only complain that he could not get police protection so that he could visit a police station at, I think, Forkhill in South Armagh. He had not gone there in 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989 or 1994, so why did he have to go along on one particular day in 1999? And why on earth should he expect special police protection? Some of us have lived our whole lives without police protection in Northern Ireland. We would not want it when our constituents face the threats that they have faced for 30 years. I have lost more than 200 constituents, and I do not expect or want—I would not accept—more security than the police and the Army can give to my constituents.
  I do not know why the hon. Member for Belfast, East whinged so much yesterday. He whinged that he could not have a helicopter to take him to South Armagh. Is it the logic of his argument that if the Army gave him a helicopter, it would have to give one to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, too when they go there? His argument is ridiculous. He whinged a bit more about the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not doing his job.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East allegedly protects the police, and claims to have the interests of the police at heart. Like me, he feels great antipathy towards much of the Patten report. Is not one of the best ways in which to undermine or change the Patten report to criticise the Chief Constable and the command structure of the RUC?
  The hon. Gentleman is the same person who went to Clontibret. He is the man who whinged that if he were jailed in the Republic, his throat would be cut while he was in prison. He is the man who prefers stunts to trying to move forward a process, even if it is an exceedingly difficult one. My fear is that the IRA and other paramilitary groups may not disarm, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman fears that they will.
  I want the Bill to ensure that no part of the United Kingdom will have to go through What we have been through for 30 years. That is why I am surprised to hear speaking against the Bill the very people who urged me to take a chance on how we deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland and how we accommodate those who say that they are prepared to move away from terrorism but who have yet to provide evidence of that. I am willing to take a chance, and I have taken one. But rather than moving forward during the time I have been in the House, the hon. Member for Hull, North and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—I have been here as long as he has—have regressed into their bigoted, narrow, little, green-tinted world. They make no contribution whatever to attempts to convince the people of Northern Ireland across the political divide that they have a genuine understanding, let alone a proper interest.
  Part II of the Bill worries me. The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission seems to be inadequately dealt with. How will it operate? From past experience, I fear that the Secretary of State could, in a benevolent mood one day, decide that as an organisation had not been heard from for a couple of months he should end its proscription. In fact, there must be solid
  198
  information on whether any proscribed organisation has moved permanently away from violence. We must ensure that the RUC special branch is properly equipped and resourced so that it can deal adequately with the huge list of proscribed organisations.
  If we follow the Patten route for special branch, it will be gradually subsumed within the CID. I seek the Home Secretary's assurance that there will be adequate resources, particularly in Northern Ireland, to maintain the work of special branch. Some of my hon. Friends will recall that when terrorism once again raised its ugly head in Northern Ireland in 1970, the available amount of high-grade intelligence on which the Government could act was low. We must not leave the police without resources adequate to deal with the huge list of proscribed organisations.
  In relation to schedule 2, I might ask the Secretary of State what is in a name. For example, there was a coalition of Continuity IRA, Irish National Liberation Army and Provisional IRA dissidents known as Uglaigh na hEireann, but it is not among the proscribed organisations in the schedule. Perhaps like the Real IRA, which is also not listed, it qualifies for proscription under the generic term, "the IRA". I want to ensure that that is the case.
  The organisation that I know as the Continuity IRA is alluded to in the schedule as the Continuity Army Council. Based on my remarks about the use of the generic term, I wonder whether the CAC is another name used by the Continuity IRA. If that name were changed tomorrow, must we add the new name to the list of proscribed organisations, or is there a means by which the Bill can encompass the fact that the previous name was the Continuity Army Council? I hope that we can receive an answer on how we deal with such matters.
  Some important provisions under clause 18 were, surprisingly, dismissed by some of those hon. Members who made more positive contributions to the debate. Those provisions deal with the obligation of disclosure where money or property resulted from, or was to be used for, illegal purposes. It struck me that, rather than being too tightly drawn, those provisions are somewhat loose, inasmuch as a person is not required to make a declaration if he believes that his business or organisation has established a means of identifying illegal property or money.
  It might be helpful if such a person were required not to assume that the procedure for making a disclosure was adequate for that purpose. We are aware that all sorts of businesses—such as public houses or filling stations—operate as a cover for illegal activity in Northern Ireland. We have no doubt that, should terrorism rise again, the funds for terrorist organisations would emanate from such apparently legitimate businesses.
  Under clause 18(5), professional legal advisers are excused from the need to pass on information. That applies when a crime has been committed, but should there not be some clarification? For example, in a case where a professional legal adviser has reason to believe that the life, or lives, of a person, or persons, may be at risk, should he not have an obligation of disclosure? That matter should be covered in the Bill.
  Why does the responsibility for disclosure apply only to people in professional environments? As I recall it, that differs from provisions under earlier legislation, which

  199
  required people in domestic or social environments to make known illegal activity, or a cover for illegal activity. Why have such measures not been included?
  I conclude by pointing out that terrorism becomes as sophisticated as the legislation designed to inhibit it; in fact, of necessity, it becomes more sophisticated. It is important that the Bill, as it evolves through its various stages over the forthcoming months, is flexible enough to adapt to the changing nature of terrorism. Hon. Members should be assured that terrorism and the nature of terrorism will continue to evolve.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Victor Hugo said:
  "An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come."
  I suspect that, were Victor Hugo to witness our debate today, he might caution us that an invasion of liberties might be justified, but not if it is based on an obsession with ideas whose time has passed. Sadly, we need to recall the past in order to see where we are at present. We stand at the edge of the possibility of a lasting peace in Ireland. That is as uncertain as it is exciting, and will, no doubt, bring its own challenges.
  However, the opportunities offered by that possibility mean that we must roll back the frontiers of our presumptions—how far our obsessions with terrorism dictate the framework within which we view the whole of society. Given that we have reached this point, it is surprising and disappointing that the Bill would dramatically extend the scope of our definition of terrorism.
  For two or three years, many of the big global corporations—especially those involved with biotechnologies—have been telling us that they require new rules from Governments to protect the ability of corporations to exploit. They regularly refer to the actions of social movements that oppose them as environmental terrorism. They are keen to push this phrase into the language of our view of society and of our civil rights legislation.
  Although in the UK we face a period of extended peace, it is also true that, under the agenda that is gathering for the start of the next century, there will be a dramatic growth in social movements involved in direct action. In many ways that is a consequence of Governments—including our Government—deciding that they are not able to defend public rights against corporate acquisitions. We have seen this in many of the debates on the World Trade Organisation, and in several debates on the interference with common rights of citizens in Europe. Time after time, Ministers have to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "The hon. Member may have an important point, but I am powerless to intervene. This is outside the Government's control. We are not in a position to protect our own citizens' rights." In consequence, we are witnessing a global resurgence of citizens' movements, saying, "If democratically elected Governments can no longer protect citizens' rights, we shall have to do so ourselves."
  Inevitably, some of those social movements will not only challenge the status quo but find themselves in breach of the law. It is terribly sad that we have chosen this moment to change the definition of terrorism that the
  200
  House has worked to, in order to extend the remit of control and intrusion directly into the lives of those social movements.
  At the start of the debate, the Home Secretary actually said that terrorism legislation should be directed at action by organisations that were determined to undermine the foundation of government itself. That is the definition of terrorism that makes the most sense to me. To colleagues from Northern Ireland, I would simply say that the important challenge of this time is about moving away from presumptions about terrorism and simply looking at ways in which the extension of the criminal law can be made realistic and accessible.
  In that context, it would be a tragedy if we used the Bill as an opportunity to extend the mentality of terrorism into the social fabric and organisation of the whole United Kingdom. Yet that is precisely what the definition in clause 1 would seek to do. It is to turn direct action movements into potentially terrorist movements. The consequences of that would be devastatingly destructive for the whole of the social fabric of the United Kingdom.
  As other hon. Members have pointed out, clause 1 raises huge questions about the language in which it is written. It is pointless for the Home Secretary to say, "I am terribly sorry; laws are constructed from language, but let me give you some assurances about meaning," because the words are the only legacy that the House gives to society in the laws that we pass. Assurances about interpretation are not deliverable in the courts or the judicial processes or, more specifically, in extrajudicial processes. There is a long history of a much more limited and destructive set of interpretations subsequently being placed on words used in legislation that has passed through this House.
  Who will define "serious violence"? Who will define serious violence against the person? Who will define serious violence against property? Who will then say when an act of terrorism falls outside the scope of existing criminal law, in relation to the advancement of a political, religious or ideological cause?
  Audrey Wise: Would my hon. Friend care to take account of those people who commit serious violence against property, not with a view to destroying life, but with a view to saving life? I think of those women—some of whom were acquitted—who attacked the Hawk aircraft with hammers, and of the Trident Ploughshares 2000 organisation, which attacked the Trident submarine to save life, not to destroy it. They may be right or wrong—we could discuss that at length—but are they terrorists?
  Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The actions taken by the women in Trident Ploughshares 2000 were dealt with very differently in Scotland and in England. In Scotland, the sheriff acquitted them; in England, they were found guilty. However, in both cases they were tried under criminal law, not under the terrorism Acts. It is crucial for us to declare, at this stage, that such issues must be dealt with within the framework of the criminal law system. As soon as we start to move into presumptions about terrorism, we transform the relationship between civil protest movements and elected Parliaments and the judicial system.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the French Government's action in ordering the sinking of the

  201
  Rainbow Warrior—and the death of two sailors on it—in New Zealand was an act of terrorism, as was the United States bombardment of the medical factory in the Sudan? Does he agree that, when we are talking about terrorism, we must also think very seriously about the whole concept of state terrorism?
  Mr. Simpson: It just goes to show what a terribly complicated area this takes us into.
  I shall cite my own examples—examples that cause me huge uncertainties about where they would fit in relation to the Bill's provisions. What happens to those Kurds who are involved in the opposition to the building of the Ilusu dam, which would forcibly remove tens of thousands from their homes, and from which there would be no environmental gain but real political gain for a Government who wish to get shot of, or to silence, their Kurdish population? Many of us in this country have actively supported that movement, and yet it would appear that the wording of the Bill, especially in the definitional framework of clause 1, would make that activity illegal.
  What would happen to the opposition by the tribal peoples of the Amazon to the corporate destruction of the rain forests? Many of us have also been involved in active support for those campaigns of resistance, and would certainly provide platforms and meeting places for some of the main campaigners in the United Kingdom. We would seek to work internationally to provide a framework of support for those organisations—and yet all of that would appear to be caught within definitions of terrorism in the different clauses.
  I have been involved in campaigning work with Indian farmers and peasants and consumer movements, who have a campaign called Cremate Monsanto. It is terribly clear and unsophisticated. Its aim is to burn down the fields of crops that they see as likely to do devastating damage to their own ecosystem and their prospects of survival. That too would be defined as an act of terrorism within the Bill, and supporting their campaigns would also be so defined.
  Mr. Hogg: One need not look abroad to see the difficulties that are posed. The plain truth is that if an organisation threatens to grub up large quantities of genetically modified crops, it is threatening an activity that falls within the scope of clause 1; and if someone wants to subscribe money to that organisation, they are committing an offence under clause 14. It is pointless for Ministers to say that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not authorise a prosecution; the plain truth is that democratic activity is inhibited by the fear of the offence that is being created.
  Mr. Simpson: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for bringing me to that point. I spoke at a rally in Oxfordshire, organised jointly by Greenpeace and Genetix Snowball. I congratulated them on having logic and ethics on their side, but said that they did not need to occupy the adjacent field of genetically modified crops. However, they took no notice of my advice, and peacefully occupied it.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that such an occupation would fall within the Bill's definition of an act of terrorism. Those who supported it
  202
  would similarly be caught within the terms of the Bill. In this case it would not only have been myself; it would also have been the large number of decorated ex-service men who turned out in their full regalia of medals, who told me that they had fought two wars—certainly the last one against fascism—and felt that the prospects of food fascism being forced on them by multinational companies required them to come out and peacefully sit down in those fields, in the knowledge that they were destroying those crops. They were organised acts of a political or ideological nature that certainly did damage to property.
  I hope that the people who committed those acts understood that they were taking risks within the existing framework of the criminal law. However, that would not, under any current circumstances, redefine them as terrorists.
  We are being asked to accept a real paradigm shift. Somehow the threat to the stability of the state has given way to threats to the corporate estate, and that will be the basis for the new definition of social terrorism. That is a desperately dangerous path to go down.
  On a lighter note, the Bill may result in the need to rewrite episodes in "The Archers" that dealt with the trial of Tommy Archer. Those who follow "The Archers" realise that Tommy Archer was tried under the criminal law. But, if the Bill goes through, he would have to be tried as a terrorist. If its provisions were accepted, Tommy Archer would be unlikely to get off—even in "The Archers". Is there any value to society in going down a path that runs the risk of turning large sections of its members into social terrorists?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The even more worrying point in support of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that we are being asked to make that shift with the Home Secretary providing no evidence or making the case in the House that the current law does not adequately deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has described.
  Mr. Simpson: That is absolutely the point that I want to make. I have waited in vain to hear any evidence that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 fails to provide us with the abilities to tackle the issues that have been mentioned to justify the Bill. Nothing has been cited in the debate so far which has offered a shred of evidential support for that.
  I have referred to causes that I support which could all fall within the terms of the Bill. However, it is also important to refer to at least one cause that I do not support. I am an opponent of this cause, but I would defend to the hilt the right of its members not to be redefined as terrorists. I am referring—and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) may wish to reflect on this—to anti-abortion campaigners. We all know that in the United States militant anti-abortion campaigners pose threats to people's lives and they certainly pose threats and do damage to property.
  Such offences should be dealt with under the criminal law, but would I wish to see them defined as acts of terrorism? If they are defined as terrorism under the terms of the Bill, all those who offer succour and support to such religious or ideological campaigns could similarly find themselves caught within the term. They would be open to the same presumptions about the right of arrest, the right to seize documents and the right to be challenged

  203
  about whether they act as channels for the direction of money or publicity support. Even though the cause or campaign is one that I do not support, it is not right to redefine such behaviour as acts of terrorism. Offences must continue to be dealt with in the framework of the current criminal law.
  Mr. John McDonnell: Free the Vatican One.
  Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend says, "Free the Vatican One" and he illustrates the Bill's danger. It becomes harder to envisage which social, direct action campaigns will not be caught within its remit.
  We must consider carefully the clauses that would present real difficulties to such campaigns. Clauses 14 to 17 are about the provision of assistance. They will bring solidarity groups within the Bill's terms of reference. Clause 18 sets out a duty to provide information and puts people under an obligation to act upon their "suspicions". The failure to do so can constitute an offence that may warrant up to five years in prison—and acts of solidarity can carry a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Clause 54, which is the highlight of them all, and is about directing the activities of criminal groups, introduces an offence that can carry a lifetime sentence.
  I return to the example that I gave about Genetix Snowball. It held a press conference in the House of Commons at which its press officer explained why the group was taking action to occupy fields of genetically modified crops. It is clear from the terms of clause 54 that that press officer would have been guilty of organising "at any level" the activities of Genetix Snowball. He would have fallen under the terms of the Terrorism Bill. It is crazy that its reach should extend so far and so destructively. It is a catch-all Bill that will net, if not all Members of the House, some fairly prominent Members of it.
  I urge the Home Secretary to reflect on the fact that at least two of his ministerial colleagues occupied prominent positions in the campaign "Stop the 70s Tour". Many were involved in direct activities that were damaging to property and that were unambiguously ideological. They were designed to bring about the collapse of the apartheid regime. Not only would such campaigners have been caught then, but at least one of my hon. Friends is now ideally placed in the Foreign Office to conspire with others involved in international liberation struggles. Under this Bill, that may also be redefined as terrorism. This highlights the absurdity of what it could inadvertently catch within its reach.
  I shall be brief in adding to the list of issues that the Bill's Committee will have to consider. The whole House should be concerned about any extension of the remit for extrajudicial activities, such as extending the rights to stop and search, to enter premises, to make arrests without warrant and to seize documents. Those are serious extensions into, and serious erosions of, civil liberties. There may be a crisis in the security services if a lasting peace breaks out in Ireland. However, we cannot offer some sort of job saving new deal scheme for the security services simply by extending the presumptions of terrorist activities into and across the whole United Kingdom.
  The Bill is also in danger of presenting us with a two-track judicial system in which there is a much greater extension of reverse presumptions. Parts of the Bill make
  204
  it quite clear that it will be the arrested person's obligation to prove his or her innocence. That is a complete reversal of one of the central tenets of our judicial system. Anyone who has been down that path will know how difficult it is to prove one's innocence. The basis of any credible justice system is that it has to prove guilt; it is not for the accused to prove their innocence.
  There are three challenges that must be met in Committee. First, we need to begin at the point suggested by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which is to spell out exactly what is not covered within the framework of existing criminal law—particularly the Police and Criminal Evidence Act—that would justifiably be included in a terrorism Bill.
  Secondly, we ought to consider a different definition of terrorism. I ask the Home Secretary to consider for a moment the definition used in the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993, which says that terrorism
  "means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto."
  We may want to include considerations about whether those Governments are democratically elected, but that definition returns us to the recognition that the concept of terrorism has to be, and be seen to be, a threat to the stability of the state, not to the sanctity of corporate profits.
  Thirdly, in any extension of terrorism legislation, we have to recognise that exceptional measures have not only to be justified through exceptional scrutiny but constrained by conditional approval. Any such provision ought not to be passed by the House without the House being given the duty and the opportunity to review the adequacy of the legislation if not annually, at least every five years. To do less than that would be to do a disservice not only to the society that put us in the House, but to the House itself and the principles of democratically elected and accountable Government.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: It was clear even before today's debate that the Bill had generated a great deal of interest and no little controversy. This afternoon's debate has confirmed that, but by this stage many of the salient features have been rehearsed, so I shall be brief. I want to pick up one or two points in what we have discussed.
  The first is parliamentary scrutiny, which was almost the last point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), and was also mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). One of the more reassuring features of the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act was the level of parliamentary scrutiny to which they were subject.
  As the House knows, they were reviewed thoroughly every five years; their implementation was subject to an annual independent review, and the Act had to be renewed annually after a debate and the opportunity of a vote in this place. That was deemed the appropriate way to handle emergency and temporary provisions of an exceptional nature.

  205
  Over the years, we have listened to and respected the views of a succession of Labour shadow Home Secretaries, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who viewed emergency provisions and the PTA as affronts to liberties, to be tolerated, if at all, only because of the threat and reality of Irish terrorism. I am therefore genuinely and greatly puzzled to find Labour Members, now that they are in government, willing to abandon the important mechanisms of parliamentary scrutiny of the sort of measures that they previously hesitated to support and sometimes did not support.
  Successive Governments deemed that those mechanisms were necessary to scrutinise such legislation. Why cannot there be a statutory five-year review and an annual report on the implementation of this proposed permanent legislation? Why cannot there be roughly the same procedures of the annual debate and vote? I cannot understand why that should not happen. If it cannot happen, it begs the question whether it is wise to move into an era of permanent anti-terrorism legislation.
  The second issue is the one on which most of the debate has been focused—a definition of terrorism, which is the inherent problem in any attempt to draft anti-terrorism legislation. I started listening to the debate with an open mind but with a general approval of the Government's approach. I had watched, as many hon. Members had, the evolution of that line of thinking, predominantly through the reports of Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
  The more that the debate has unravelled, however, the more concerned I have become about the line that the Government have adopted. I should like to think that a distinction could be drawn between acts of terrorism that happen in a mature democracy, where the Government can be and are changed through the ballot box, and those that occur in a country where there is not what, for convenience, one might call a genuinely democratic Government. The various contributions to the debate have shown that such a strict distinction is hard to maintain, even untenable.
  That is a supremely important issue to which we must return, first in Committee and no doubt in later stages. I fear greatly that the Bill could be used to take false steps, albeit with the best of intentions. Much thought must be given to the whole issue of defining terrorism. I suspect that ultimately one cannot reach a universal interpretation, definition and application of the concept of terrorism.
  The final point that I want to raise has not been touched on greatly in this debate. It is the thorny problem of detention and the European convention on human rights. The previous Government considered in detail amending the PTA to make the judiciary responsible for authorising the extension of detention. They concluded that there was no way to do that without undermining the independence of the judiciary, especially in Northern Ireland, so the derogation that they entered after the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on the Brogan case remained in force.
  Not all of us on the Government Back Benches at the time were entirely happy with that, not least because we saw that the judiciary was increasingly assuming a review
  206
  role in other areas of the law. Although we accepted that the independence of the judiciary should not be undermined—especially, perhaps, in Northern Ireland where such matters are more sensitive—some of us thought that it could be avoided by creating a separate. independent judicial body for that purpose.
  I was therefore encouraged to find in the present Government's consultation paper, "Legislation Against Terrorism", that such a body was one of the three options that they were then offering. They put forward the idea of creating an independent commission along the lines of that established by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. I regret that the Government have not followed that course.
  Paragraph 24(4) of schedule 7 details different arrangements for the judicial authority that can lengthen detention beyond 48 hours. I do not think that those arrangements remove fears about threats to, and the undermining of, the independence of the judiciary. It is a matter for regret that the Government have chosen not to create an independent commission for that purpose.
  Those issues aside, I believe that much of the Bill represents steps in the right direction. I shall support it in principle tonight, with the single qualification that many hon Members are rightly concerned that the issue of defining terrorism might take us in the wrong direction.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Steve McCabe: I apologise for not having been present throughout the debate so far. I had a pressing commitment and gave my apologies to Madam Speaker.
  Three weeks ago, I attended the anniversary service at Birmingham cathedral for the victims of the Birmingham bombings. I was struck by the horror and torment that relatives of the victims feel to this day: 25 years on, they still ask how such a terrible thing could have happened, why it was not prevented and why those responsible were never caught. Therefore, I recognise the need for legislation to curb the actions of fanatics and those lacking any respect for the democratic process. Those of us who believe in freedom and democracy know that we have to pay a price for protecting ourselves from anti-democratic terrorist elements. That price involves some restriction of our liberties, but a balance must be struck between our security and the sacrifice of our liberties.
  We should welcome certain elements in the Bill, such as the general recognition of the need to co-operate with international partners to tackle the growing and unpredictable threat of terrorism. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I welcome the scrapping of the internal exile provisions that were so unsatisfactory a feature of the prevention of terrorism Act. The Bill introduces good safeguards, such as the welcome role of the judiciary in determining extensions of detention beyond 48 hours. Further to that, I wonder why the judiciary is not also being given powers to authorise stop and search, and why that has been reserved to Ministers. I also welcome the sensible step of providing proscribed organisations with a right of appeal.
  There is much in the Bill with which I feel comfortable, but, like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I have reservations about certain elements in the Bill, to the extent that I wonder whether we have got the balance right. I am struck by the many letters I have received from

  207
  constituents—ordinary people in Birmingham who have experienced horrible bombings—in which they make clear their belief that the Bill contains real threats to our freedoms. I am not convinced that the assurances given and safeguards offered so far are sufficient. Like the civil rights organisation Liberty, I wonder whether it can ever be right in principle for us to accept that those motivated by religious or ideological beliefs should have fewer rights and be made worse off than those who commit crimes motivated by malice, greed or revenge.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), I am happy with the current Home Secretary and his ministerial team: I have great faith in them and believe that they genuinely want to preserve our freedoms and protect democracy. I have no concerns about them, but I am conscious that ministerial teams change. I recall one Prime Minister who thought that there was an enemy within—organised labour. What would have happened to the miners and their families, or to the women at Greenham Common, if the legislation before us had been in effect when they opposed the Government of the day?
  The Home Secretary said in a recent article in The Guardian that we should not be concerned about the "Mandela effect"—the notion that if the powers in the Bill had been in effect earlier, we would have been unable to support the ANC. However, the ANC had an armed wing, as does the National Council of Resistance in Iran—an organisation which was once regarded as a great friend of the British Labour party. The council is dedicated to ending a regime in Teheran that is regarded as being wholly tyrannical and anti-democratic, even though it claims to have democratic legitimacy. I am to meet representatives of that organisation tomorrow, but, by associating with such people and supporting their cause, am I risking sooner or later becoming guilty of an offence under this legislation?
  I am also worried about the provisions relating to the threat of serious violence. Recently, it became apparent that the Chinese President and his security people believe that what we would regard as legitimate protest can be construed as a threat of serious violence. What would be our response if people who shared the views of the Chinese started to put pressure on us?
  Clause 55 makes one guilty of an offence if one is in possession or is associated with an article that the authorities believe is connected with terrorism. How does one prove one's innocence in those circumstances? That an article appears, one is associated with it or accused of being associated with it, and one is therefore guilty, all sounds rather Kafkaesque to me. Clause 56 makes it an offence to collect information that someone else might choose to use for terrorist purposes. Working as an investigative journalist in such a legal environment will be extremely difficult. Similarly, a person who is accused of holding information that might be useful to terrorists is guilty until he is able to prove his innocence.
  I understand that it will also be an offence not to pass on a belief or suspicion in respect of terrorist activity. There is a massive streak of Big Brother in such a provision. Our judicial system will be stretched too far if holding a suspicion or a belief but not sharing it makes one liable to prosecution. My point is that all those provisions will severely restrict the actions of investigative journalists and have a serious impact on the freedom of the press. Instead of making our society more
  208
  secure, the Bill might make it more secretive. That cannot be the intended outcome of legislation designed to protect us against terrorists.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be willing to address in Committee the genuine concerns that have been expressed today by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. He should do his utmost to ensure that the final outcome is legislation that protects us from terrorism without attacking the very liberties and freedoms that guard a democratic society.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: As has already been said, the Ulster Unionists will be supporting the Bill tonight. We believe that it is important to continue to have legislation in the United Kingdom which provides for the continued threat of terrorism. I welcome the permanence that is now being given to legislation dealing with anti-terrorism. Sadly, terrorism is a permanent feature of the world in which we live.
  In implementing the Bill, it is important that we recognise what has happened in the past. As flaws in previous legislation were sometimes exploited, it is important to ensure that new legislation is as accurate and fail-safe as possible.
  It is true that I and others have expressed concerns about concessions that have been made under the Belfast agreement, not least the early release of terrorist prisoners. However, if we are truly drawing a line under all that, it is important that the Bill sends out a clear signal that terrorism will not be tolerated, whether it is in Northern Ireland or in any other part of the United Kingdom. Some terrorist organisations see the concessions that have been made by the Government in respect of the IRA, the UVF, the UDA and other terrorist organisations as signals that the Government are weakening their approach to terrorism. That must not be allowed to happen.
  It is important that the House sends out a clear signal to all terrorist organisations that we will not tolerate terrorism in the United Kingdom. Parliament has a responsibility for ensuring the safety of all our citizens. Bearing in mind that the objective of terrorism and of terrorists is to terrify those citizens to apply pressure on the political process, we who are involved in that process have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that that is not allowed to happen, that we uphold the principles of democracy and that we do not give way to terrorism. That is why ending terrorism in Northern Ireland means not only an end to violence but to the threat of violence. I think that the Bill acknowledges that when it seeks to define terrorism as being not only the commission of an action that involves violence but the threat of such an action.
  In political terms, the threat of violence and terrorism can be as potent as violence and terrorism themselves, as we have learned to our cost in Northern Ireland. That is why we have argued consistently for disarmament as a key element in ending terrorism. It is vital to removing the threat of violence. For as long as there are terrorist organisations that are fully armed, with their arsenals of weaponry intact, the threat of violence remains. That is why we will continue to press for disarmament. It is about removing the threat of violence from the political process in Northern Ireland.
  The political representatives who now sit in the Executive of the government of Northern Ireland and who are linked to terrorist organisations must ensure that those

  209
  organisations remove the threat of violence by removing the arms that pose that threat. The sooner that happens, the sooner the threat of violence will be removed from society in Northern Ireland.
  In my opinion, a terrorist organisation that remains armed and refuses to declare that its campaign of violence is ended should remain a proscribed organisation under the terms of the proposed legislation. I note that there is provision within it for de-proscription. However, in respect of the terrorist organisations that are operating in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom which are linked to politics in Northern Ireland, let us be clear that there will be no question of de-proscription until they have ended their violence for good and have fully disarmed in line with the objectives that are set out in the Belfast agreement. That is in line with the clearly defined principles established as part of the political process that are known as the Mitchell principles, which commit parties and organisations to non-violence in all its forms.
  The Opposition spokesmen have made it clear that that must mean an end to so-called punishment attacks, for example. That is vital. We must not countenance violence by terrorist organisations in any form. Our objective must be to pursue an end to all violence. Unless that happens and unless disarmament takes place and is complete, the Government should not move to de-proscribe any of the terrorist organisations that are listed in schedule 2. To do so without disarmament and without an end to violence would be premature and wrong.
  If an organisation fails to meet the requirement outlined in the agreement, set out by the Prime Minister on numerous occasions and established under the Mitchell principles, it should continue to be proscribed for the purposes of the proposed legislation.
  I note the special provisions for Northern Ireland in part VII, which are time limited for five years. I am sure that we all hope that in five years' time such provisions will no longer be necessary. However, I urge the Government not to rule out the possibility of re-enacting the provisions in five years if that is necessary. It may be that the threat of terrorism will remain after that period. We know that organisations are operating in Northern Ireland on both sides which have not declared ceasefires, and therefore continue to pose a threat. They are in addition to the organisations that are on ceasefire, which equally pose a threat to peace in Northern Ireland because they have failed to renounce violence or decommission their illegal weapons.
  Given the special provisions for Northern Ireland, it is necessary to mention the Diplock courts. In a perfect world, we would have trial by jury in Northern Ireland. However, the reality is that terrorism is pervasive; the terrorists continue to use intimidation against jurors to prevent justice from being applied. Again, I urge the Government not to act prematurely in ending the Diplock system. It is necessary to ensure that justice continues to be applied to the activities of terrorist organisations.
  Let us not forget that terrorist organisations, even if some of them are on ceasefire, are still continuing with forms of violence and intimidation, along with their so-called mafioso-type criminal activities. It will be difficult to obtain convictions through jury trials against individuals who are members of these organisations who
  210
  continue to engage in violent activities, whether criminal or terrorist. The Diplock court system should continue for the foreseeable future.
  It is equally important that the Government should not act with indecent haste in removing the anti-terrorist security infrastructure. I know that the agreement envisaged a normalisation process, but that can take place only when we have normality, or when the threat of violence is significantly reduced and eventually removed. In proceeding with the so-called normalisation policy, I hope that the Government will bear in mind the need to protect people and not to drop their guard. I mention particularly the full-time reserve of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Irish Regiment. If it is the Government's intention to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland, they must ensure that that regiment continues to have a role in supporting the police in their anti-terrorist activities. The regiment is locally recruited and locally based, so it is available if there is a sudden increase in terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will retain both the full-time and part-time elements of the regiment to support the police.
  Despite the recommendations in the Patten report, I trust that the Government will not act prematurely to reduce the numbers of the full-time RUC reserve, which has played a vital role in supporting the regular police, not least in combating terrorism. It is important that the full-time reserve does not get a raw deal for the sake of political expediency, and that it is accorded proper respect and allowed to continue in its role as long as that is needed.
  As the Chief Constable said, there must not be a premature down-sizing of the RUC as long as the threat of violence remains. There can be no doubt that the threat is still present in Northern Ireland. The Chief Constable has said on a number of occasions that the activities of dissident loyalist paramilitary organisations and of the republican terrorist organisations not on ceasefire give rise to concern, so we must not drop our guard now.
  Clause 52 makes provision for dealing with training and recruitment in respect of terrorist organisations. As I understand it, subsection (1) makes it an offence to publish information useful for the purposes of manufacturing or using weapons for terrorism. That could include the publication of such information on the internet. That is a useful provision. May I suggest to the Government that it might be extended? My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, has on a number of occasions made representations about the need to extend the provision for the admissibility of wire-tap evidence in terrorist trials.
  It may be useful to extend the scope of the provision covering the publication of information on the internet to include wire-tap evidence. That would enable such evidence to be admissible in court to prove, for example, that someone had been involved in procuring weapons, recruiting people to a terrorist organisation, or the dissemination by telephone of information for the purposes of manufacturing or using weapons for terrorist purposes.
  In conclusion, my constituents in Lagan Valley look forward to the day when terrorism is a thing of the past. We, like others in Northern Ireland, have had to live with the yoke of terrorism, the anti-terrorist infrastructure, and

  211
  the security measures that have been necessary to protect life. I commend the security forces, particularly the RUC and the Royal Irish Regiment, and their predecessors, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army, for their role in defending the community in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom.
  We want to be free of the yoke of terrorism, and we want peace in Northern Ireland, but that must be real peace—not just the absence of violence, but the absence of the threat of violence. That must surely be the objective of all democrats and of the Government. The legislation is necessary, but we hope for the day when it will not be necessary. That day is some way off yet.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Inevitably, I shall focus on the aspects of the Bill with which I disagree. There are a number of those, but I recognise the merit behind the Bill's general approach. I see great advantage in having one statute that consolidates or codifies—I do not use those terms in a technical sense—the law, so that one does not have to deal with various statutes.
  It is good to introduce a Bill that brings together the relevant legislation. However, I am uneasy about the Bill's definition of "terrorism" and "terrorist". The definitions of terrorism in clause 1, and of a terrorist in clause 38, lie at the heart of the Bill. The reason is that the various powers, offences, duties and obligations that the Bill sets out are directed to the pursuit of terrorism and to the identity of the terrorist. I shall return to those obligations and offences, but I begin with the definitions.
  The definition of terrorism goes far beyond the traditional definition. Historically and in previous enactments, we have essentially directed our attention to campaigns against the state, which have been defined in various statutory language. As was appropriately said from the Government Benches, the Bill includes attacks on the corporate estate, which is an extraordinary departure in our concept of terrorism.
  The definition of terrorism that appears in clause 1 includes the use of the threat of serious violence against persons or property. In my remarks, I shall focus on serious violence against property. What do we mean by that? The Home Secretary was right: he cannot give an absolute definition. However, we can be sure that the courts will attach a meaning to "serious violence". I shall suggest some activities which, in all probability, do constitute serious violence.
  If I were a supporter of Greenpeace, which I am not, or of Friends of the Earth, which I am not, and I had it in mind to grub up a field of genetically modified crops or set fire to them, I would say that such an act was serious violence to property. It most certainly would be serious violence to persons if I were to knock a policeman about in the process of doing that.
  If I supported animal liberation, which I do not, I would recognise that breaking open mink cages to release mink was an act of serious violence to property. If I wanted to interfere with the laboratories of research stations and decided to smash my way in and release the animals, that would be a serious act of violence to property. Those are not speculative acts—all of them have happened frequently. For example, the hunt saboteurs—a particularly
  212
  disagreeable group of people—threaten serious violence to property. Incidentally, they threaten serious violence to individuals as well.
  I strongly disapprove of all those characters, and I am glad to say that existing criminal law covers, in almost every respect, their activities. However, if I ask myself whether they should be treated as terrorists, I am bound to say, no way. Why not? Let us consider some of the consequences that attach to an activity that falls within the scope of terrorism; or, for that matter, let us consider what happens to activities that are connected with individuals who fall within the definition of a terrorist.
  First, there is the power of proscription. The Home Secretary can tell Greenpeace or the Animal Liberation Front, for instance, "Because you are associated with what are clearly acts of terrorism, I am entitled to proscribe you"—and he is so entitled, according to the Bill. What is the right of appeal? We are told, in short order, that there is such a right, but that is rubbish. What there is, is a commission. Is the commission to review the merits of proscription? Oh, no—under the Bill, the commission must decide whether, in accordance with the principles of judicial review, the exercise has been carried out properly. That is entirely different. That is one of my less important objections to the Bill, but it is certainly an objection.
  Anyone who pursues an activity that comes within the scope of clause 1 can be proscribed by the Home Secretary, with no effective right of appeal. However, there are much more serious objections of a more practical character. Let us suppose that one of the organisations that could come within the scope of clause 1 wants to raise some money. Let us suppose that it asks for money, as it is bound to do: Greenpeace, the Animal Liberation Front and anti-abortion activists certainly do. Asking for money in connection with an activity that is capable of being terrorism is capable of constituting an offence, according to the Bill. Moreover, contributing money is an offence under clause 14. We should be very careful if we are feeling generous.
  The Home Secretary says, "This is all artificial, because the Director of Public Prosecutions would never agree to a prosecution". That may be true, but what is the individual citizen to reckon in advance? Does he know Mr. Calvert-Smith as well as I do? Of course he does not. [Interruption.] Does the Home Secretary wish to intervene? I shall give way if he does. He clearly does not wish to, so I think that he is making my point.
  The ordinary citizen will know only that his act is capable of constituting an offence; whether he is prosecuted will depend on the wisdom of the Director of Public Prosecutions. What will that individual do? He will feel that he cannot become involved in a democratic activity. Moreover, banks and accountants who happen to be handling the affairs of such organisations will probably be under a duty to make a disclosure, and will probably be deemed to have committed an offence if they do not do so. We are told that the Director of Public Prosecutions would never be so foolish as to authorise a prosecution, but can the banks and the accountants count on that? Will they not say, "As a result of an abundance of caution, we will make a disclosure"?
  The issue goes even further. Clauses 23, 24 and 25 contain powers of seizure and forfeiture; clause 39 contains a power to arrest without warrant; clause 35 contains a power to exclude people from a designated

  213
  area, and clause 41 contains a power to search premises and property. Generally speaking, all those powers are triggered by a reasonable ground for the belief that the organisation involved is embarking on acts of terrorism. Uncomfortable as this may be for Ministers, we have already established that the act of terrorism has been broadly defined by clause 1, and is capable of including many acts that no one in his right mind would consider to be acts against the state. That is thoroughly undesirable.
  I want to draw attention to another power, which I think would be even more distressing for some Labour Members. It lies in clause 60, which states that an individual who had, for example, maintained an armed campaign against people whom we considered undesirable, and who then came to this country, would face prosecution. Let us be clear about this. Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabari—whom the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Home Secretary, Lord Hurd and I met, and encouraged to wage war against Saddam Hussein in northern Iraq—were clearly doing things that came within the scope of clause 60. If they came to this country, they could be prosecuted. If they came to someone like me—a practising lawyer—and asked whether they could safely come to this country, I would have to tell them that, under this legislation, they could be prosecuted. I would add that whether they would be prosecuted would depend on the good sense of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is a bizarre state of affairs, which is entirely wrong. As I have said, I do not approve of such activities, but I do not want to make them constitute terrorism.
  That takes me to my second, related point, and here I draw on my experience of the Foreign Office. Clauses 1 and 57 include in the concept or definition of terrorism acts that are committed abroad. Let us take two recent examples. The Kosovo Liberation Army was engaged in a struggle against the Serbs in Kosovo. I do not want to discuss the merits of that, but what the KLA was doing certainly involved acts of violence against persons and property. Its acts constituted, or were capable of constituting, acts of terrorism within the terms of clause 1.
  I used to meet the Kurds of northern Iraq on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We positively encouraged them to try to throw Saddam Hussein out of the area. They were using force, and therefore fell within the scope of clauses 1 and 57. If they were to raise money in this country, as they did—indeed, the Government probably gave them money—that would constitute an offence under clause 14. Those are offences. The only consolation that we can offer those people is that they would not be prosecuted because of the provisions of clause 113, under which the DPP would not give his consent. I feel that this is a serious departure from the principles that we should be implementing in this country.
  I do not intend to spend a lot of time discussing drafting points, because they are essentially Committee points. However, in passing, I have to say—and I have already told the Home Secretary—that one of the reasons against proscription is the absence of a right of appeal.
  Another point relates to the powers of seizure of funds associated with terrorism. I have personal experience of that. About two years ago, I was operating in the courts of Dublin in relation to the Criminal Assets Bureau. This
  214
  legislation is not very different from the Irish legislation in that regard. All that need happen is for a police constable to say that he has reasonable grounds to suppose that the cash is associated with terrorism, and he can then grab it and go along to a magistrates court which, if it is satisfied on similar grounds, will make a detention order. If the character whose money has been taken wants to get it back, the onus is on him to prove that the circumstances no longer exist. Those powers are capable of being misused, and powers that are capable of being misused will be misused. That is the nature of the beast.
  I personally think that the Bill has revealed the structures under which civil liberties will be seriously curtailed. By extending the definition of terrorism, we put at risk our long tradition of giving sanctuary to people who are fighting oppressive regimes abroad. We put at risk the democratic right of people to protest. I may not approve of that protest—I frequently do not agree with protests—but I do not want protesters to be classified as terrorists.
  Left to myself, I would probably divide the House on giving the Bill a Second Reading. However, there is not sufficient support for that, so I shall not do so. However, the Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee because it requires very careful consideration. If the Liberal Democrats move their motion, I shall support it. I hope that other hon. Members who are worried about civil liberties will do likewise.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I shall restrict my comments to part VII, which deals with Northern Ireland. Any hon. Member who was involved in the recall of Parliament in September 1998 will not be surprised by the Bill's contents, which are consistent with events then. I remember spending 16 solid hours in the Chamber listening to exactly the same arguments, and over which hon. Members took similar positions.
  The legislation that was passed then has not been used once since it became law. Governments are in the habit of worrying about the failings of human nature instead of celebrating its triumphs. That is slightly ironic because one of its great triumphs has occurred in Northern Ireland in the past few weeks. The extraordinary events there show that if we have faith in people and apply normal human law, we can make enormous progress.
  The emergency provisions and prevention of terrorism Acts have been part of a messy process which has led us to our current position. They probably had an impact on our ability to reach that position, so it is no surprise that those measures are amalgamated in the Bill. That is part of the process of normalising the terrorism legislation that applies to Northern Ireland. We all agree that that needs to be done. It is not only the five-year limit that is crucial, but the fact that the provisions must be renewed every year, like previous measures. That means that they could cease to operate before the end of the five-year limit, which is all to the good.
  Some hon. Members, few of whom are present, believe that even the time-limited Northern Ireland provisions are too much. I do not believe that because we need to make the change gradually, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. For example, the role of the Diplock courts nowadays is much diminished compared with the time when they were established. However, we must be confident that we can get rid of them.

  215
  Placing the onus of proof on the accused for possession of firearms and explosives is a logical provision, given events in Northern Ireland during the past 30 years. The much-debated powers of search, seizure and arrest without a warrant, which clauses 79 to 93 cover, have always been controversial. We all want to see the back of those clauses over time—nevertheless, it is right to be cautious.
  Some senior and authoritative sources question the need for continuing with separate proposals for Northern Ireland and ask why we cannot have one measure that covers the United Kingdom. One of the most eminent of those groups is the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is an independent statutory body that was established under the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. It is the only commission of its kind in the United Kingdom, and probably in western Europe. It has a duty to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice in Northern Ireland on human rights. It takes a stronger view than mine—it believes that the Bill should not provide additional special powers exclusively for Northern Ireland, and that the measure should not extend the life of the current emergency provisions Act until it comes into force.
  Professor Dickson, who is chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, is worried about the compatibility of the Bill with the European convention on human rights. Those points have already been made. I make the case not because I am convinced by it, but because we have to anticipate a profound dialogue in Committee to understand why people such as Professor Dickson feel so strongly. My views reflect those of the Ulster Unionist Members who spoke tonight. Change must be gradual.
  I would be grateful if the Minister could give the House some idea of the amount of consultation that has already taken place with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Government's plans as we progress towards Committee stage. It is important that the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly are seen to be directly involved in the process as we move forward. It is perhaps even more important for the public to understand why the Bill contains separate provisions for Northern Ireland as we move towards a normalised cultural and social society in Northern Ireland.
  The fundamental question is, for how long will we need special provisions for Northern Ireland? Is there a way of balancing more quickly the needs of Northern Ireland with those of the rest of the United Kingdom? Given the breadth of views expressed in the Chamber tonight, the Northern Ireland provisions will constitute the Bill's key bone of contention. Those are good grounds for further discussion in Committee.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I apologise for not being in the Chamber throughout the debate. I shall give the reason for that shortly, because it bears on the debate. I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and I totally agreed with him. I have written to the Government Chief Whip to say that I cannot support the Bill. I do not know whether there will be a vote, but I cannot support the measure for very personal reasons.
  216
  When I appeared in Trafalgar square in 1964 to support a well-known terrorist who had just been convicted in the Rivonia trial, would I have been guilty of terrorism under the Bill? The next time I met the man, he had a Nobel peace prize and was President of South Africa.
  One of the reasons for my absence from the debate was that I was outside the Russian embassy, protesting against the bombing of Chechnya. The Russians argue that the people of Chechnya are terrorists. Would I be guilty of supporting terrorism for going to the Russian embassy to demand that the Russians stopped the bombing and that Chechnya be given the opportunity to determine its future? Doubtless, the Home Secretary can help me. It is no good people shaking their heads. According to the Russian Government—a de jure and a de facto Government—the people of Chechnya are terrorists.
  Tomorrow morning, I shall be in the Middlesex court defending a woman who put some graffiti outside the House of Commons to protest against nuclear weapons. She is a very courageous woman. I am not allowed to mention her name because one cannot deal with sub judice cases, but I have known her for years. She was at Greenham common and I appeared for her in York when she opposed the Menwith camp. If we define damage to property as terrorism, that woman could be a terrorist.
  The Bill is an outrageous measure. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I could not believe that the Liberal Democrats would not vote against the Bill. I have enough Liberal blood in my veins to believe that this place is about civil liberties and democracy. The more the Government open themselves to the influences of international organisations and business, the more they clamp down on dissent in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) drew attention to that. I can imagine circumstances, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, involving, for example, genetically modified food, in which the Government crack down on opposition here and become increasingly open to the influence of Monsanto and other companies that interpret free trade as an opportunity to buy Governments.
  I was in America this summer, celebrating my golden wedding, and I had breakfast with the World Affairs Council. A former Governor of Ohio said to me, "We'll never have democracy in America until we stop companies buying political parties." He was a Democrat—I suppose that he would be called an old Democrat in the language of today—and he pointed out that the American prison population is rising dramatically and that big companies pay the Democrats and the Republicans and expect a pay off, whoever wins.
  These are big issues and I am terribly disappointed that a Government whom I support—I have always supported Labour Governments since joining the party in 1942—should be introducing a measure that would get a standing ovation at a Tory conference if a Tory Home Secretary proposed it. Every Conservative Member knows that the Bill is absolutely foreign to the conventions and traditions of the Labour party, which has always been in favour of trying to help people from other countries who have struggled for their independence against repressive Governments and which has always been sympathetic to the dissident because the dissident often turns out to be right. I do not know whether the suffragette who chained herself to the statue of Lord Falkland in St. Stephen's hall

  217
  and broke the sword when she was pulled off would have been guilty of damage to property under the Bill. Might she have ended up in that category?
  This is a thoroughly bad Bill. Although there will not be a vote against it, at least on the motion—
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Benn: Has the hon. Gentleman changed his mind on the vote on Second Reading?
  Mr. Hughes: Although the right hon. Gentleman was unable to be present for my speech, he knows that severe criticisms of the Bill have been made from both sides of the House. Given that we cannot defeat it on Second Reading and therefore will go ahead, and because we want to debate the issues, I hope that he will accept that examining the evidence for the Government's case before we consider the Bill line by line is the best way to proceed.
  Mr. Benn: We all know what the evidence is: the Home Secretary wants the Bill. There is no evidence for the change and we want a Committee of the whole House to debate every amendment because the Bill affects the civil liberties of the nation. Although any opportunity to enter the Lobby is attractive to the Liberal Democrats, perhaps they have settled everything in a Cabinet Committee with the Government, in which case I would not dream of tempting the hon. Gentleman away from his allies. I do not know about that, but the Bill should be dealt with by a Committee of the whole House. If such a motion were tabled we could consider it properly, but a Special Standing Committee seems to me to be an excuse for diverting attention from the major errors in the Bill.
  Mr. Hughes: A Special Standing Committee is nothing to do with that. I think that it is within the right hon. Gentleman's power to table a motion to commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House, if he wants to put that proposition to the House. Such a motion does not have to appear on the Order Paper. The House could consider the matter, we could vote on it and we could have a Committee of the whole House. I assure him that these issues certainly have not been debated in a Committee by my party and the Government.
  Mr. Benn: It will be best if all the main points are put to the House on Report and we can vote on them. I have described my genuine—not nasty—disappointment that the Liberal Democrats, whom I had always thought of as okay on these matters, have turned out to be less clear than I had hoped. However, we cannot all follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who made a powerful speech which I shall read again and again. His remarks reflected exactly what I think about the Bill.
  8.23 pm
  Audrey Wise: I shall be brief. Like some other hon. Members, I want to concentrate on the issue of serious violence committed against property. We all abhor terrorism and we are all afraid of it—I certainly am—but I have met people who have committed serious violence
  218
  against property and against a Trident submarine. They were not terrorists and their motivation was not to frighten us but to save lives. They think that Trident submarines are a danger to all our lives, although their action may or may not have been appropriate. Speaking for myself, I prefer straightforward, mainstream political action—that is why I am a Member of the House—but those people were not terrorists. The women who broke into British Aerospace outside Preston and went at the Hawk aircraft with hammers did it to save lives—they were not terrorists.
  There has been some discussion of clause 18, which has been described as a danger to investigative journalism because a person would be committing an offence if he did not disclose his belief or suspicion that, under the Bill's definition of terrorism, another person had committed an offence. Journalists may not be the only ones affected. I could foresee a situation in which I was told that someone had gone to do more damage to a Trident submarine. Would I be committing an offence if I did not immediately trot off to the Government and say, "I am informing on these people"? I would not dream of doing that. I might engage such people in a discussion about the best and most effective means of action, but inform on them? I certainly would not.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made a powerful speech that was made even more powerful by his disagreement with most of the organisations that he used as examples. 1 have given money to Greenpeace and I support it. I am also a supporter of Genetix Snowball, and I gladly give it money when the opportunity arises; but those organisations commit offences against property.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady asks whether she would be committing an offence if a member of one of those organisations said to her that he had committed an offence or intended to do so and she did not tell the prosecuting authorities. She is much to be reassured because the Director of Public Prosecutions would not have her prosecuted, but she probably would be committing an offence.
  Audrey Wise: I find it difficult to be reassured by reassurances because, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I believe in looking at what is in the Bill. I do not always understand the decisions of the DPP on ordinary criminal matters and I know for a fact that I am not the only Member who does not understand those decisions. Why should I expect to understand decisions made by successive Home Secretaries and successive Directors of Public Prosecutions? The important issue is what the Bill says, and it says that a person is a terrorist if he commits serious violence against property for ideological, political or religious reasons. The people I have referred to certainly acted for ideological and political reasons that were deeply moral.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady, who I think has listened to the whole debate, is not only right but right to warn the Government and the House of the danger of going down such a road. Under the Bill, the go-betweens involved in the discussions that took place in Northern Ireland over the past few years and who tried to

  219
  achieve the breakthrough to peace would have risked criminalisation. I hope that she is listened to because she realises the severity of the proposal.
  Audrey Wise: I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
  I very much hope that the Government listen to the points that have been raised. Nearly everyone who has spoken in the debate, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), has criticised the Bill, but not out of any desire to support terrorism or terrorists—on the contrary.
  It is indeed dangerous to define terrorism so widely that it could cover damage to genetically modified crops, as that would risk people losing their natural revulsion for terrorism and making them think, "Perhaps some terrorists are not so bad after all." I would not want to bring the law into disrepute in that way. I want people to detest terrorism, and we would not encourage them to do so by widening its definition.
  Mr. Winnick: I do not think that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As someone who is broadly in favour of the measure and who believes that under no circumstances should Britain be used as a base for terrorism, I have serious reservations about those aspects of the Bill that could undermine civil liberties which, as my right hon. Friend said, is exactly what the terrorists want to do.
  Audrey Wise: I saw my hon. Friend's intervention on the screen, and I agree with him.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has a certain reputation for being willing to engage in serious discussion and listen to serious points—perhaps more than some of his colleagues—to justify that reputation in respect of the Bill. We do not want to make it seem as though there are divisions in the House in respect of terrorism. Indeed, there are not, but there certainly are divisions in respect of the Bill. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will listen to the points that have been made from both sides of the House and from many different perspectives.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: Lord Lloyd of Berwick began his consideration of terrorism legislation in Britain by addressing whether there was still a need for specific legislation or whether instead we should rely on the general criminal law. Having studied the evidence and talked to those most closely involved in the fight against organised terrorism, he reached the firm conclusion that such legislation was still needed. I believe that the Government were right to accept that conclusion and to introduce the Bill.
  Today's debate has included contributions from all parts of the House accepting that central proposition, although some right hon. and hon. Members expressed reservations about particular aspects of the Bill. The hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke from their long experience of dealing with the threat of terrorism in their constituencies, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) spoke about the
  220
  scars that the Birmingham bombing left in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) spoke from experience derived from his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Office for some years.
  Lord Lloyd concluded that the threat from organised terrorism is likely to grow in the near future rather than diminish. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) expressed some disappointment with the Government's conclusion that there was a need for permanent legislation. I welcome the fact that she supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she asked the Government to consider seriously the possibility of arranging for an annual report to be made to Parliament and for an annual debate to take place in each House about the exercise of the powers under the Bill, on the assumption that it becomes law. That proposal found favour in various political parties represented in the House, and I strongly urge the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), to take it seriously and to incorporate it into the Bill.
  Several hon. Members considered whether, in the light of the improving political climate in Northern Ireland, there was still a need for special provisions for the Province. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) expressed a strong view that special powers in respect of Northern Ireland were no longer needed. His view was countered by those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, for Lagan Valley and for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the Opposition accept that exclusion orders no longer serve a useful purpose, and we shall not oppose their formal repeal. It is certainly our hope that political progress in Northern Ireland succeeds in turning the Good Friday agreement into a genuine and lasting peace, but we are not yet in that position. Therefore, the Opposition endorse the Government's view that there remains a continuing need, at least for the time being, for specific provisions in respect of Northern Ireland.
  Much of the debate has centred around the definition of terrorism in the Bill as it is currently drafted. Concerns have been expressed by some somewhat strange bedfellows: my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), and—although he spoke in slightly less strident terms—my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Clearly, we shall need to look closely at the definition of terrorism when the House considers the Bill in Standing Committee and on Report, but it is important for us always to bear in mind the fact that the legislation has to strike a balance between civil liberties and the protection of the public, and that the threat to the safety and well-being of the British public from organised terrorism is real and continuing.
  Let me deal with a couple of the points that have been made in the context of definitions. Reference was made, for example, to animal rights groups. Questions were asked as to whether people who supported particular demonstrations or causes that were connected with animal rights would fall within the definition of terrorism in the

  221
  Bill. I hope to hear the Minister say in due course that of course those individuals would not be so categorised, but it is also right that people who are engaged with animal rights extremists to the extent of becoming involved in plotting acts of violence against their fellow citizens should be subject to the full rigour of anti-terrorism law.
  Anyone who studies Professor Wilkinson's paper, published with Lord Lloyd's report, will see that there is a history of such incidents. They include firebomb attacks on stores in the mid-1980s; a high-explosive bomb attack on Bristol university in 1989; and car bomb attacks by animal rights extremists in 1990, one directed at a veterinary surgeon, a second at a psychologist. One of the attacks resulted in injuries to a 13-month-old baby. Those are not incidents that can be described simply as normal or legitimate political protest. They are acts of tenor. The police and other authorities should have the powers that they need to investigate and to check such actions.
  Comments have been made about the Bill's reference to serious violence to property. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made, especially those made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. We will want to explore the matter further in Committee, but there is another side to the argument. I understand from reading the consultation document that the Government wish to ensure that the law provides for adequate powers to be available in respect of attacks by organised terrorists that are designed to disrupt, for example, vital computer or other communications systems, which could result in extensive disruption to economic and other infrastructure. In effect, the Government have a duty to provide against economic blackmail.
  Had the Bishopsgate bomb or the Arndale centre bomb in Manchester gone off with no loss of human life and no injuries, those would still have been acts of terrorism designed to intimidate British people and to force the British Government into action out of fear that, otherwise, further lives would be put at risk or major damage would be done to the normal way of life.
  Other right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about the Bill's references to support for acts of terrorism, or alleged terrorism, overseas and to its provisions for extraterritorial jurisdiction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater spoke about the difficulty of legislating for a spectrum of countries whose political regimes could range from those of France or Germany at one end to that of Iraq at the other. Much depends on the actions that might be classified as terrorist. Even the most robust critics of the Bill would accept without question that a random terrorist attack on innocent people in an authoritarian or totalitarian country was unacceptable.
  Mr. Hogg: It is extremely difficult to tackle that definition. For example, if the Kurds in north Iraq decide to embark on a military campaign against Iraqis in that region, they might use artillery to shell villages. Such explosions would fall within the classification covered by clause 1, but are we really to say that people who support
  222
  the Kurds in those circumstances should be treated as though they were aiding and abetting terrorists? That would be the effect of the Bill.
  Mr. Lidington: I hope that the Minister will deal with that point in his concluding remarks. It is another matter for more detailed examination in Committee.
  Mr. Maginnis: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), does not he recognise that ordinary, conventional warfare conducted according to the Geneva convention is one thing, and that terrorism—which by and large picks on the weakest element in society to create terror—is another? Does not that difference apply to the example offered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes an effective point. As a country, we have agreed already that some offences—hijacking is the most high-profile example—are to be deplored and that they should be subject to criminal sanctions at an international level. That applies regardless of any sympathy that we might have for the motives of those who feel impelled to take such courses of action. I accept that these are not easy matters to define, but the Government, while preserving civil liberties, also have a clear duty to consider what measures are needed to protect the public from a genuine and serious threat.
  Mr. Tom King: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is worried about the drafting difficulties of clause 1, but does not my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that we are able to deal with the problem of the extraterritorial organisation of terrorism? Such activity is deplored by all hon. Members.
  Mr. Lidington: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend.
  My only personal exposure to the immediate impact of terrorist action was at Brighton in October 1984. No Conservative Member who was there will ever forget the scenes. However, it is sobering for anyone with such vivid memories of Brighton to reflect on the experiences of people such as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He and his constituents have had to endure a campaign of vicious and relentless terrorism that lasted for decades.
  So long as the threat to Britain from domestic and international terrorism remains, exceptional powers will be needed to enable the police and other authorities to deal effectively with it. That is why the Opposition will support the Government in seeking a Second Reading for the Bill.
  8.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have had an interesting discussion this evening, which has accelerated in the past hour or so. I shall try to deal directly with some of the points made in the debate.
  The Bill is predicated on the belief in the proposition that the threat of terrorism continues, and is still a force which exists today which must be dealt with.

  223
  In the light of some of the cuddly remarks made about animal liberation, which I was not going to address this evening, I will quote from Professor Paul Wilkinson's inquiry into legislation against terrorism—a document which is in the Library of the House, and which sets out the kind of threat about which we are talking. After dealing with nuclear smuggling and other attractive manifestations of terrorism, he goes on to refer to animal rights groups. The reports says:
  "The majority of those involved in the animal welfare lobby keep firmly within the law and abhor violence."
  That is their creed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) has described.
  "However, a cluster of small groups such as the so-called Justice Department of the Animal Liberation Front, and the Animal Rights Militia, have crossed the threshold from extra-parliamentary protest and demonstrations to what can only be described as acts of terrorism; incendiary attacks on shops and other premises and letter and parcel bombs. In 1990 animal rights extremists used car bombs in two attacks on scientists, one in Bristol and one in Porton Down. In the former case the scientist was unhurt, but a 13 month old baby was injured by shrapnel. There were major firebomb attacks against shops in Newport, Isle of Wight, York and Harrogate, in 1994. Millions of pounds worth of damage has been caused over the past few years alone.
  There is continuing evidence that terrorist violence by animal rights extremists remains a threat in many parts of the country."
  The report gives the example of police finding a bomb factory in the home of one activist, with material for 100 incendiary weapons and a list of potential targets. The target list included an agriculture college, slaughterhouses, the Milk Marketing Board, food manufacturers and horse breeders. The report states:
  "It is clear that a campaign of this kind would have endangered life as well as property."
  I commend the document to the House. We are dealing not with cuddly individuals or organisations, but with serious issues.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to the global threat—the Japanese gas attack, the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the continuing issues with some forces in Ireland. The reason for the Bill is that terrorism continues to exist, and we would be betraying our duty to the people who elected all of us if we did not make sure that we put in place a system of law to deal with those threats.
  Mr. McDonnell: When will the criminal law apply, and when will this proposed legislation apply? My understanding of the Bill and its definitions is that it would apply to the Stop the City campaign, in which property was seriously damaged. Would it apply to those protesters in Seattle—as well as their supporters—where there was violence and damage to property and individuals? Would the Bill apply to those groups, or would they be subject to the criminal law?
  Mr. Clarke: I assure my hon. Friend that I will address that point in detail, along with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
  I want to place on record that I welcome the support of the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Democrats and the Ulster Unionist party for the Second Reading of the Bill. I have sat throughout this debate—apart from a couple of very brief comfort breaks—and, according to the notes I have taken, about two thirds of those who have
  224
  spoken support the Second Reading. There have been some serious issues on process and the question of the Special Standing Committee, but about two thirds have said that they support Second Reading. That is because they recognise that special measures are needed to protect the public and to work within the international framework.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I will in a moment. I shall just deal with the important procedural points that have been raised. First, people have raised concerns about the Human Rights Act 1998, which they are perfectly entitled to do. However, it must be emphasised that my right hon. Friend's statement, which appears on the front of the Bill, was not made ill advisedly. The statement reads:
  "In my view the provisions of the Terrorism Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."
  I am not referring to my right hon. Friend's professional expertise, which is well known, but, on the basis of all the advice that we have had, the Bill is compatible with the 1998 Act—it would not have been drafted in this form were it not.
  Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No. I will give way after I have dealt with the procedural points, first to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
  Secondly, we do not favour using the Special Standing Committee procedure for the Bill. There has been extensive consultation on the provisions via the report of Lord Lloyd of Berwick in 1996 and the Government's consultation in December 1998, to which there were 80 responses. We published an analysis of the responses earlier today; copies of the responses can be made available if that would be helpful.
  These provisions do not differ significantly from the proposals in the consultation paper. While some may be considered to be controversial, I do not view them as particularly difficult or technical. I therefore do not think that there is a need to adopt the Special Standing Committee procedure, as proposed by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, to whom I shall now give way.
  Mr. Hughes: I understand the Government's position that there is widespread support for a Bill. But the view of many people who responded to the consultation was that either the Bill should not be extended beyond domestic legislation or that the definition as now proposed was not acceptable. The definition is different from that contained in Lord Lloyd's proposal—it has changed. Surely there is a case for hearing evidence and getting the measure right rather than pushing it through and then discovering that we have got it badly wrong.
  Mr. Clarke: There is a case for a full debate on these matters. I shall indicate, as I go through the substance, the areas in which points have been made that need to be discussed very fully in the Standing Committee. However,

  225
  that does not add up to an argument for a Special Standing Committee. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister mentioned that the Home Secretary had given the authorisation for the Bill under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill contains provisions that allow detention without access to legal advice for 48 hours, the rights of invasion of privacy, powers of stop and search and the power to proscribe organisations operating in other countries which help people in this country. Does the Minister not believe that many of these will be tested in the European Court of Human Rights or under British law when the Bill is finally enacted? What will the Government do if the Bill is found to be inadequate in that respect? Will they accept the power of the European convention on human rights or try to legislate around it?
  Mr. Clarke: I remind my hon. Friend and the House that it was this Government who decided to incorporate the convention into British law and establish these rights. As a result of that law, we must give our verdict on the front of the Bill as to whether we think that it complies with the convention. Our view is that it does. As my hon. Friend suggests, any decision that is raised may be tested through the judicial process. We shall have to consider that aspect as the Bill progresses.
  That leads me to the third procedural point that I wish to make—Parliament's continued attention to the matter. A number of proposals have been made in the course of the debate, including renewal every Parliament, annual reports to Parliament and to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and scrutiny under the European convention on human rights, as mentioned by my hon. Friend. These are serious points and the Government take them seriously. We are prepared to discuss in Committee the best way of ensuring that the whole House can judge these matters as the Bill progresses and consider the best way to proceed.
  There are a number of different views in this approach, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have indicated the importance of Parliament having the continued right to scrutinise this effectively through the whole process. I am prepared to say that we shall return to the matter in Committee so that we may discuss the most effective way in which to proceed.
  My fourth procedural point is that we are repealing the exclusion orders, something which several hon. Members have welcomed. That powerful and positive development should be welcomed on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
  Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has had a lot to say, but I shall give way to him once more.
  Mr. Hughes: I accept that that is so. The Minister's comments on the possibility of reaching an agreement on reconsidering the Bill are welcome. We, and I hope the other parties, shall take seriously any all-party discussion on how any legislation can be opened to greater scrutiny in future.
  Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that offer.
  226
  Let me turn to part VII, which deals with Northern Ireland, and which several hon. Members have mentioned. Our whole approach to this part of the Bill is part of a process in which all our colleagues in Northern Ireland have participated. The Government are prepared to remove part VII as soon as the assessed level of threat means that it is safe to do so. It is part of the process through which we have gone and to which both sides of the House are committed. We intend to be in tune with the process rather than being at odds with it. That is why the Bill has been introduced, and why we have dealt with these matters in this way.
  Several hon. Members have gone over the history of their roles in the process in entertaining and sometimes informative style. I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) for all that he has said and for the support that he has given to the leader of his party. He raised particular points about schedule 2 and proscribed organisations, and I can tell him that the Continuity IRA and the group that calls itself Uglaigh na hEireann—otherwise, the Real IRA—are proscribed by the general proscription of the Irish Republican Army in schedule 2.
  The nub of the debate is the definition in part I. Several clarifications must be made for the sake of clarity. First, our definition does not threaten demonstrations and expressions of opinion. Secondly, contrary to the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, it was not inserted into the Bill at the behest of international corporate interests. Thirdly, the definition will threaten organisations that seek to prosecute ideological views by the threat of serious violence. That is our intention, because that is a dangerous area.
  Insufficient attention has been given to one further point of the Bill. The threshold of the definition—not its breadth—is higher than was previously the case. The tests applied in the Bill involve "serious violence", endangering
  "the life of any person"
  or creating
  "a serious risk to the health or safety of the public".
  The test is not "any use of violence". Acts that intimidate the public but for which no qualifying motivation can be demonstrated are no longer caught by the Bill. As at present, no offence of terrorism is linked to the new definition. The major offences for which any terrorist may be charged—this answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell)—will, as at present, be criminal offences under the ordinary criminal law. Those include murder, conspiracy to cause explosions and so on.
  The definition triggers extra powers for the police to prevent and investigate terrorist actions and threats, such as stop and search, the power to raise cordons and a special power of arrest. Special additional powers and offences are being introduced to thwart the establishment and continuance of terrorist groups, such as a power to proscribe and a bar on fundraising.
  In light of some allegations that swirled around the Chamber earlier this evening, I want to make it clear that the new definition would not necessarily catch the actions of any domestic groups currently in existence. My right

  227
  hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no plans at present to proscribe any domestic group. Circumstances may of course change, and it is right that we should have the flexibility to respond if they do. However, if groups do not engage in serious violence—to the best of my knowledge and that of my right hon. Friend, most do not—the new definition cannot catch them. For example, peaceful demonstrations or strikes could not be caught. That clarification is important for the whole process.
  I acknowledge that the question of definition is a real issue, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater pointed out. Serious proposals have been made on both sides of the House as to how we should deal with that question. Opposition Front-Bench Members offered to introduce a series of probing amendments in Committee; I look forward to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South suggested an alternative definition, which he felt would be more appropriate than the one in the Bill.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater that we need to find the difficult balance between the additional powers under the Bill and the additional safeguards and responsibilities that attach to it. Definition is important and the balance of judgment is difficult. We shall debate the various issues that arise from that in Committee. I am fully ready to explore those matters in Committee, as long as we do not water down one of the critical commitments of the Bill—to deal with terrorism in the most effective way.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: If my hon. Friend is not prepared to accept the amendment to create a Special Standing Committee, which I regret, given that the principal Opposition are not against the Bill will he ensure that the Government Members on the Standing Committee include some of those who have expressed concerns about the Bill and who will engage in vigorous discussions on the points that he has just raised?
  Mr. Clarke: One of the great tragedies of my life—hitherto I have not shared it with the House—is that I have never been a Whip and thus am not entirely privy to the processes of the Committee of Selection. However, I am sure that that mysterious group—whoever they are—will have heard what my hon. Friend said.
  Proscribed organisations are dealt with under part II, and there is a specific definition. There is an appeals process—to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission—as set out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We acknowledge that the power to proscribe is an extreme and significant one. The groups currently listed in schedule 2 are Irish organisations that are already proscribed under existing legislation. We are considering which international groups it might be appropriate to add, taking into account such factors as the nature and scale of the group's activities, the specific threat that they pose to UK and British nationals abroad, the extent of their presence in the UK, and the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. However, I emphasise that proscription is a heavy power; it will be used only when absolutely necessary. It is part of the balance that I mentioned earlier.
  Mr. McDonnell: I accept the Minister's assurance on this Government's exercise of proscription as a final power.
  228
  However, I offer a concrete example. Let us take part I and part II together, under a definition of an organisation as terrorist—an organisation that has an "ideological cause" and perpetrates
  "serious violence against any person or property".
  Almost every organisation that demonstrated in Seattle was involved in serious crime against persons or property. Major mayhem was caused in that city. Many of those organisations were from this country and were funded by individuals from this country, and could be subject to proscription under parts I and II—could they not?
  Mr. Clarke: Any organisation that focuses on the courses of activity defined in clause 1 is potentially subject to proscription. That is clearly set out in the Bill. My hon. Friend's point about funds relates to my next point on terrorist property and the concerns expressed about clauses 14 and 18.
  In relation to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South on clause 14, it is not true that those giving money to an organisation—some of whose actions may come under the clause 1 definition—will necessarily commit offences under part III. People who give such money would have to know, or have reasonable cause to suspect, that the donation would be used for the purposes of terrorism. There needs to be a much more direct link between a donation and its likely end purpose than my hon. Friend suggested in his intervention.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) raised a serious and important point on clause 18. I emphasise strongly that the fundraising and money-laundering systems are massively important in fostering and strengthening terrorist organisations. I have become fully aware of that fact only since taking on my present job in the summer. I had read about Noraid and so on, but I had not appreciated the extent to which that is the case. It is also the case in some of the areas of crime that the Bill does not cover. The money-laundering system is a key element in the support for such organisations. That is why we need to address, and why the clause addresses, the ways in which we target those people.
  As many hon. Members have suggested, it is important to get the balance right; but it is also crucial to target the fundraising, which is the life-blood of such organisations. That includes telling professional advisers—as we do in the Bill—to take seriously their responsibilities in that regard. Two months ago, I was at a G8 conference on organised crime. The key question that was being discussed throughout the world was how to ensure that people who know that the proceeds of fundraising will be used to support terrorism live up to their responsibilities. That is a large part of the motivation for the relevant clauses in the Bill.
  Mr. Maginnis: Given the problems that the Serious Fraud Office has had over the years, huge resources will be needed to take action on the provision of finance to terrorist operations from apparently legitimate sources. Are the Government now prepared to say that those resources will be made available to tackle the problem that the Minister has defined?
  Mr. Clarke: I am not prepared to make a statement to the House tonight, but I am prepared to say that we

  229
  absolutely take the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Proposals for new legislation are under consideration, and we are studying the resources issues that will be involved because extremely substantial issues are involved.
  In response to the specific argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, I want to make it clear that although I do believe that people who, in the course of their work, come across information about terrorist fundraising should pass it on, there is in the Bill a defence of reasonable excuse, which is an important qualification. We have also dropped the broader provision in section 18 of the PTA that any suspicion of terrorist activity acquired in any circumstances must be passed on, or an offence is committed. We have substantially tightened the provision.
  I am prepared to consider in Committee the detail of the various wordings of which there was criticism, from wherever that criticism came. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was worried that the definition of terrorism in clause 1 might be too loose, and he also drew attention to other issues. Those need to be debated in Committee.
  My penultimate point is on the question of detention and whether it should be dealt with by the Executive or the judiciary. We have fulfilled our commitments in that area. We believe that the judiciary approach is modelled in ordinary criminal law. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken on that subject, and no doubt it will be fully debated, but the Government believe that it is an effective, positive and progressive change to give the judiciary power to deal with these matters.
  Finally, I turn to the question of incitement and overseas activity, mentioned by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. First, I want to quote from clause 57(1):
  "A person commits an offence if he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom".
  I emphasise the word "incites". It is important to send a strong message to extremists that incitement in this country to terrorism anywhere overseas is unacceptable. In tandem with other parts of the Bill, those provisions demonstrate our commitment to change the climate in which people seek to operate in this country. We want to deter the encouragement of terrorist activities and to offer a basis for enforcement action that is necessary in the various circumstances that arise.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Alan Simpson rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a second, but first I shall answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield.
  In the case of the Rivonia trial, the answer is no—there would not have been an offence against the Bill. One could consider whole areas. The aim is to stop the incitement of specific terrorist activities.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Simpson rose—
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Clarke: I give way, for the final time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North.
  Mr. Corbyn: If a person organises a meeting in solidarity with an organisation in another country that is attempting to overthrow the Government of that country by violent means, is that person guilty of an offence? Are the supporters of that organisation guilty of an offence? Are the people funding it or attending the meeting guilty of an offence? It seems to me that they could well be adjudged to be supporters of terrorist acts even if the regime that they were trying to overthrow was a totally evil and repressive regime, but had since named its opponents as terrorists.
  Mr. Clarke: Prima facie, the answer is no. I cannot judge specific cases; that will be a matter for the courts to determine according to particular circumstances. The short answer is that support for solidarity action, international campaign organisations or whatever will not be an offence in the context that we are talking about.
  I want to emphasise that clauses 60 and 61 will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations convention on the suppression of terrorist bombings and, therefore, to meet our international obligations. Clauses 57 to 59 will essentially fill in the remaining gaps in the law to ensure that where offences are committed anywhere in the world, they can brought before our courts—and quite rightly so.
  Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend remember that when terrorist atrocities occurred in Egypt involving British citizens, the Egyptians asked why Britain allowed this country to be used as a base for terrorist purposes? Whether we did or not—it would have been unknown to the Government of the day—is it not important that we send the message that Britain will under no circumstances be used as a base for terrorist activities? Otherwise, we shall be in no position to lecture other countries.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point, which applies not only to the Egyptian case but to a variety of others in which it is important that we send our message clearly.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Let us consider the case of Sandline. It overthrew a de facto—not a de jure—Government and the Foreign Office seemed to be involved in that from the beginning. What is the position on that? We cannot be asked to give even a Second Reading to a Bill in which the lines of definition are so blurred that they are very dangerous.
  Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend was a member of the Government who in 1978 passed the legislation that deals with such circumstances. It is important to say that it not possible to give prima facie judgments on all the issues as they arise, but we must establish a proper framework.
  The Government believe that every act of terrorism is a uniquely cowardly and barbaric crime. The Bill responds to the need for specific powers, ensures that the United Kingdom takes a tough stance, provides a new permanent legal framework and gets the balance right. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to energetic and interesting discussions in Committee on the various issues before us.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63(2),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
  The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 262.

  Division No. 19]

  [9.13 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Ballard, Jackie

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Brake, Tom

  Livsey, Richard

  Breed, Colin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McDonnell, John

  Burnett, John

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Burstow, Paul

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Moore, Michael

  (NE Fife)

  Oaten, Mark

  Chidgey, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Rendel, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sanders, Adrian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Swinney, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tyler, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Webb, Steve

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Willis, Phil

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Wise, Audrey

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Sir Robert Smith and

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Colman, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Connarty, Michael

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darvill, Keith

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davidson, Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  (B'ham Hodge H)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Dawson, Hilton

  Cann, Jamie

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dismore, Andrew

  Casale, Roger

  Dobbin, Jim

  Caton, Martin

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Cawsey, Ian

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Doran, Frank

  Clapham, Michael

  Dowd, Jim

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Drew, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  232

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Love, Andrew

  Edwards, Huw

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCabe, Steve

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fisher, Mark

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  (Makerfield)

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foulkes, George

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mcwalter, Tony

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mallaber, Judy

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, paul (Shrewsbury)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Goggins, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meale, Alan

  Gunnell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hill, Keith

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hurst, Alan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkins, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pope, Greg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pound, Stephen

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Purchase, Ken

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rapson, Syd

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kidney, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kitfoyle, Peter

  Roy, Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ruane, Chris

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Salter, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Sarwar, Mohammed

  Lepper, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sawford, Phil

  Levitt, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Lock, David

  Singh, Marsha

  233

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Todd, Mark

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Snape, Peter

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Tynan, Bill

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stevenson, George

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  (Swansea W)

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winnick, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Wray, James

  (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Wright, Dr Tony(Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thompson, William

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

TERRORISM 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 Terrorism Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act,

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment, and

234

(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

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
  VALUE ADDED TAX
  That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 3118), dated 19th November 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November. be approved.

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  Question agreed to.

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [7 December] and Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1999–2000, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1999–2000 and the Pre-Budget Report 1999 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Sessional Orders [25th October 1999] relating to Thursday sittings and Meetings of standing committees and the Sessional Order [24th May 1999] relating to Sittings in Westminster Hall shall apply to times of sitting on Tuesday 21st December as if that day were a Thursday.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
9.26 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Properly, but slightly unusually, the House is requested to treat one day as though it were another. In normal circumstances that may seem odd, but it is even more peculiar at this stage of the Session and at this hour, because it does not appear to me that the House is particularly hard pressed in terms of the time that it has available to consider the business that is before it. As usual in these circumstances, we have not had the courtesy of an explanation from the business managers. It always seems to me—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) trying to intervene? No, he is not.
The difficulty that the House faces—regrettably it is not unusual in these circumstances—is that a motion on the Order Paper is asking us to do something rather unusual, but we have not had the courtesy of any explanation. This gives me cause for curiosity and suspicion. We are getting all too accustomed, are we not, to the process whereby motions of this sort are put on the Order Paper on the assumption that they will be nodded through so that someone, I know not who, can have his way? The Government should be prepared to provide a brief explanation of what is behind such a motion. The House deserves—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There are general conversations throughout the Chamber. Those hon. Members who do not want to hear the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should leave the Chamber and let him continue.
Mr. Forth: We are therefore left to speculate, and speculation often takes a little time. Without any guidance or help, it is difficult to come to a ready conclusion on something as opaque and enigmatic as the motion before us. It states:
"That the Sessional Orders [25th October 1999] relating to Thursday sittings and Meetings of standing committees and the Sessional Order [24th May 1999] relating to Sittings in Westminster Hall shall apply to times of sitting on Tuesday 21st December as if that day were a Thursday."
We are being asked to accept that we treat a Tuesday as though it were a Thursday. That seems rather odd to me. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is proposed that next Tuesday is the last day on which the House will sit before Christmas. That suggests to me that there is no particular pressure on time that day. Yet as I read the motion, we are being asked to compress the business for that day to make it as though it were a Thursday. The assumption increasingly made in the House is that all the business must be compressed for the convenience of hon. Members. The motion suggests that that should apply even on a Tuesday, even though it is the last day before the recess. That surely deserves some explanation. That is not an unreasonable request.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not gravely
236
discourteous to the House for the Opposition to clear their Front Bench during an extremely important debate? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whether any hon. Members care to stay and listen to debates in the Chamber is entirely a matter for them.
Mr. Forth: It is pleasing that the motion is being treated with such seriousness by the House, as is signified by the unusually large attendance. That pleases me and I expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it pleases you as well.
Let us get back to the serious business at hand. Several different things have been gathered together on one occasion. We have a mystery that has yet to be resolved, about what has given rise to this rather unusual motion. More distressing to me is the fact that, yet again, we are considering a proper item of business, which is debatable because the earlier business has come to an end gratifyingly early, yet no one is prepared to do the House the courtesy of coming to explain what is behind the motion.
Surely that is another example of arrogance on the part of the business managers, who obviously expect to get their way without debate, without consideration, and without even the briefest explanation of what lies behind the motion. I suspect, but I am only guessing, that the explanation behind the motion is simple. There is probably nothing particularly devious, complicated or mysterious about it. I say that because I am a simple sort of chap, and I always look for the obvious explanation.
There may, however, be something much more sinister lying behind it. I would not expect the business managers necessarily to admit that, but it is surely not unreasonable to request a decent explanation of what lies behind the motion. That applies to subsequent motions as well, as they are all, happily, debatable until 10 pm. I am sure that the House will want to seize the opportunity with both hands.
Please can the House have an explanation of what lies behind motion 7, in order that the House may make up its mind on whether it wishes to approve the item. That is the old-fashioned way in which we go about our business—or so I thought until the idea seemed to gather pace that we do not even bother to debate matters any more. As far as I can see, many hon. Members would prefer that we did not bother voting on them, either. That may seem satisfactory—[Interruption.] If hon. Members want a Division, I shall see whether I can arrange one. It seems that there is a groundswell of demand for a Division, so that hon. Members present can express their point of view. I should like to give them that opportunity, if I possibly can. I have some doubt about that, but we shall put it to the test in a moment.
My request is this: can we please have the briefest of explanations about what lies behind motion 7, so that we can move on to the next business?
9.34 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The motion is straightforward, and I hope that I shall not detain the House long. It is a matter for debate, and I am happy to assure hon. Members that no mystery surrounds the motion. I hope that hon.

237
Members on both sides of the House will accept that it has been tabled for the convenience of the House and support it.
The motion has been discussed through the usual channels. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will remember that it was raised in business questions last week, and a request was made that we should follow a well-established precedent that before a recess there is an opportunity for the House to rise relatively early.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect the motion makes next Tuesday next Thursday, and therefore varies the sittings of the House and of Westminster Hall. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that means no loss of time in the Chamber.
Mr. Forth rose—
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman asked for a brief explanation, and I know that others wish to speak.
The motion will not lead to any loss of time. It will give Members an opportunity to leave a little early on Tuesday. I hope that Members will support that; I know that the staff of the House will. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Sessional Orders [25th October 1999] relating to Thursday sittings and Meetings of standing committees and the Sessional Order [24th May 1999] relating to Sittings in Westminster Hall shall apply to times of sitting on Tuesday 21st December as if that day were a Thursday.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall he proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
9.36 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: It seems, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that yet again no one has sought to catch your eye with the intention of explaining a motion.
Rather worryingly, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council has just expounded a new doctrine—at least, I think that it is a new doctrine. It seems to be along the following lines: if something called "the usual channels" agrees to a measure, it need not be debated in the House, and it is assumed that the House must automatically accept it. I think that that was the tenor and the substance of what the Minister said.
If that is so, it lays bare for the first time, and in a graphic way, the new philosophy that has been adopted by the Government in the House of Commons that a quick fix behind the scenes by self-appointed people is sufficient for the conducting of our business. I do not accept that doctrine for a minute, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you—a renowned custodian of the rights of the House and of Back Benchers—do not wish to accept it either. It borders on the sinister; yet the Minister deemed it to be sufficient and adequate to satisfy me, and any others who might share my worries, that we should proceed to the next business.
The Minister said, rather complacently, that the proposal had been agreed through the usual channels, so what was all the fuss about? I will tell the House what the fuss is about: it is about not just the motion that we are discussing, but all the subsequent motions, in the context of the dramatic new doctrine that has been revealed to the House. That doctrine states "Do not bother with debates or votes; the usual channels"—whoever they may be—"have fixed it all up, and that's your lot". That seems to be the basis on which we are now expected to conduct parliamentary business. It may be good enough for the majority of Members, but right now it is not good enough for me.
Let us examine the motion in a little more detail. It is an important motion; if anything, it is even more important than the previous one, which was intended for the convenience of Members. That is what we were told, and it was deemed to be a sufficient explanation. It is, of course, a seductive argument: there will not be much opposition to a proposal that is intended to be for the convenience of Members. You will have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I did not after all seek to divide the House on that motion.
This motion, however, is altogether different. It deals with the Consolidated Fund, which is crucial to the relationship between the House and the Executive. The Consolidated Fund Bill is a key part, and one of the most historic elements, of our parliamentary democracy, and of the relationship between the House—as the provider of funds—and the Government of the day. I hope that there will be no suggestion that the House would want to skimp, or to deny itself the fullest possible opportunities to debate the Consolidated Fund in detail and at length.

239
I want to try to untangle the wording of the motion. It demands:
"That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Funds Bills) shall apply."
To help the House, I shall quote Standing Order No. 56:
"When a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund or an Appropriation Bill, the question thereon shall be put forthwith, no order shall be made for the committal of the bill and the question for third reading shall be put forthwith; and the said questions may be decided at any hour, though opposed."
I begin to wonder what the motion is all about and what lies behind it. When I read the phrase,
"any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day",
I wonder whether, on a measure as crucial as the Consolidated Fund Bill, the House will have proper notice of what we are expected to approve. On a superficial reading, the motion appears to attempt to telescope the First and Second Readings. That would make it difficult for the House to give proper consideration to such an important and all-embracing measure.
The motion is worrying because it may constitute an attempt by the Government to slide a measure as crucial as the Consolidated Fund Bill through the House without proper consideration. We would usually expect a First Reading, which would give the House a general idea of the measure that we were being asked to approve. After some pause for consideration, Second Reading would be deliberated in the House and subsequent stages would then be tackled.
Mr. David Maclean: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. He will remember that, a few years ago, all hon. Members regarded the Consolidated Fund Bill as such an important measure that they used to debate it for many hours, sometimes through the night, which allowed approximately a dozen hon. Members from each side to participate. Yet it is now regarded simply as an Order of the Day to be nodded through after 10 o'clock without debate. It is worrying that the most powerful Government in history want extra dictatorial powers over the Consolidated Fund Bill. Does not my right hon. Friend find it worrying?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who may wish to explore some of those thoughts further if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be rushed; I believe that my right hon. Friend is trying to move me forward, but I am not quite ready for that. However, my right hon. Friend has helped me with the context, for which I am grateful. Perhaps I did not emphasise it sufficiently in my preamble; I rushed through my preliminary thoughts too quickly.
My right hon. Friend is right about the importance of the Consolidated Fund Bill—its scope, magnitude and the extent of the deliberations that the House gave it. In recent years, and especially since the Government achieved their massive majority, we have received increasingly fewer opportunities properly to consider those matters. The motion is a good example of that phenomenon.
240
There is plenty of time available and no need for matters to be rushed. The House is not even sitting on Friday. Although we are not pushed for time, we are ramming First and Second Readings of the important Consolidated Fund Bill together and not giving ourselves sufficient time for consideration in between those stages.
That would be bad enough, but Standing Order No. 56 not only confirms but multiplies my suspicions, because it refers to when
"a motion shall have been made for the second reading of a Consolidated Fund … Bill".
The motion states that
"any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read for the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day".
We are being asked to accept that First Reading becomes Second Reading as if by magic—without any due deliberation in between and just because the motion says so. It goes on—impudently, in my view—to invoke Standing Order No. 56—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) want to intervene? I thought that he had something to offer.
Mr. Maclean: He lost that years ago.
Mr. Forth: No, no. Knowing the hon. Gentleman, and admiring and respecting him as I do, I thought that he might have had a valuable contribution to make to these deliberations. As my thoughts unfold, I might be able to give him some ideas on which he may want to elaborate. I shall watch him out of the corner of my eye to see whether he might want to intervene. He is trying to put my off me stride—I can tell because he has a mischievous glint in his eye—but fortunately I have a copy of the Standing Orders in my hand. I am working my way gradually through Standing Order No. 56 and have reached the point at which it says,
"the question thereon shall be put forthwith".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That gives the game away. It is obvious that Labour Members are no longer interested in proper debate or deliberation or votes in the House of Commons; they want to rush through business and go home. That, surely, is not the object of business. I thought that the House of Commons deliberated on these matters, held the Government to account and examined their proposals, but the Government themselves are suggesting that proceedings should be abbreviated and telescoped, that the Question should be put forthwith and that no order should be made for the committal of the Bill. Even the question for Third Reading will be put forthwith.
The combination of the motion and Standing Order No. 56, to which the motion refers, represents the astonishing revelation that the Government are suggesting that legislation as crucial and comprehensive as the Consolidated Fund Bill should go through First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading all in one go. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have said that."] We are beginning—just beginning—to see the whole picture. The Bill will obviously not receive anything like the consideration in the House that it deserves, but it gets worse.
Standing Order No. 56 says that
"the question for third reading shall be put forthwith".

241
On the face of it, it appears that the House will be denied the opportunity properly to deliberate on this matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, particularly in these matters, but I think that he is starting to become a trifle repetitive.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall draw my remarks to a close—which is, I think, the guidance that you are giving me—in order, if nothing else, to provide the Minister with the opportunity to ease my concerns and explain what is at the moment inexplicable. I hope that he will give me the reassurance I want, which is that the Consolidated Fund Bill will indeed receive full and proper consideration in the House. If he cannot do that, the House may want to take its own view on the matter.
9.49 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I have a brief point on which to press the Minister. The motion refers to
"the sitting on Thursday 16th December"
and any Consolidated Fund Bill. I simply want to know whether he regards that as a precedent. Are there unique circumstances that determine that the Bill should be treated in such a unique and rather dictatorial manner on this occasion, or does he honestly think that a good precedent for parliamentary behaviour is being set that he may want to follow on future occasions? I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I share all his concerns. In order not to tire the House, I shall not, unless pressed, repeat the arguments that my right hon. Friend presented in his admirable way, which I could not hope to emulate.
Mr. David Watts: Get on with it.
Mr. Maclean: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman and to repeat the arguments of my right hon.
242
Friend if the House has not heard them properly. However, I am tempted simply to repeat the question so that the Minister cannot dodge it or pretend—not that I am suggesting that he would—that he did not understand or hear the question. Is this a pattern for the future and will the Minister explain what is so unique about the sitting that the Consolidated Fund Bill must be dealt with in such a diabolical way?
9.51 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Motions 8 and 9 are linked, although they may be discussed and decided separately. I shall limit my remarks to motion 8. It will be for the convenience of the House, and it is not unprecedented, for the Consolidated Fund Bill to be dealt with in just one sitting. Both right hon. Gentlemen were Ministers in the previous Government—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was a Minister of State at the Department for Education and Employment and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was a Minister of State at the Home Office. They asked whether today's procedure set a precedent. I can tell them that it does not-it follows one. It is exactly the same procedure as was used by the previous Government on 9 December 1994 and 6 December 1996. I hope that, on the understanding that no new precedent is being set, hon. Members will decide to accept the motion.
Finally, I have no objection to hon. Members exercising their rights, as they have done so tonight. There has been no collusion between the usual channels. Rights are coupled with responsibility and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that we get our business.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
9.54 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This motion comes under a slightly different category. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office because, rather like the dance of the seven veils, he is revealing his and the Government's position slowly but intriguingly. We are now beginning to see the rationale behind their thinking on these matters. He told us in the previous debate that the usual channels had fixed things up. He tried to reassure us, but he had given the game away earlier. He has now told us—and this is the crux of the matter—that the Government must have their way and must get their business. You and I well understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because that is how our parliamentary democracy works in the House, but the Minister neglected to point out that, given their enormous majority, the Government will eventually get their way. However, it is surely important to the House that there are proper deliberations before the Government get their way.
I am increasingly worried that the Government seem to expect to move straight from what they propose to the disposition of that business without anything in between. The difference between us concerns whether we should judge whether Tuesdays should become Thursdays or whether Consolidated Fund Bills have their First, Second and Third Readings in the twinkling of an eye, whether or not there is a precedent for that.
I add in passing that the Government Deputy Chief Whip seemed to find it extremely amusing that I might seek to dissent from something that the Government of whom I had the honour to be a member had done before. All I say to him and to his colleagues is that the Prime Minister has changed his mind on the odd occasion—for example, between 1983, when he was a member of CND and wanted us to leave the European Union, and now.
I am accused of pursuing some unacceptable political position by being uneasy about what my own Government may have done in previous years, but I claim as an ally no less than the Prime Minister, who has exhibited an able method of changing his mind on some of the most key policies and has prospered as a result, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want me to pursue that matter because we are talking about motion 9, which relates to the business of the House.
The motion says:
"at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received."
That strikes me as an intriguing and rather odd motion to bring before the House at this stage in the Session. One would normally expect such a motion—we are used to it—as we get to the end of a Session, when there is to-ing and fro-ing of Bills between the House of Commons and another place. That is normal. We saw it not that long ago, but what is genuinely intriguing is that the Government should want to have such a measure on the Order Paper and to have it approved by the House at this stage in the parliamentary Session.
244
That makes me wonder whether the Government have some secret and sinister ploy up their sleeve to spring on the House between now and Thursday 16 December. Why else would they want to make provision for messages coming from another place? It strikes me as rather odd and unusual.
Mr. David Maclean: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. He is right to state that it is unusual to see such a motion on the Order Paper at such an early stage in the new parliamentary Session, but would it not have helped if the Minister had moved the motion, explained what it was about and what messages the House might expect to receive on Thursday 16 December from the other place? We should have been told that at the beginning of the debate. He is the responsible Minister.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right, but the Government do not seem to have understood yet. If the Minister had done us the courtesy of a brief explanation in advance when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rose to announce the next item of business, it would have been helpful. He courteously and helpfully gave such an explanation on motions 7 and 8—I am grateful to him for that—and if he had done so on this motion, who knows? It might have reduced or, in some circumstances, even eliminated the need for the little debates that the House is now helpfully having.
Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that, on this occasion, my right hon. Friend is being too kind to the Minister. It is not a matter of it helping the House if the Minister had broken convention and explained the motion. That is not the argument. It is a motion in the Government's name and it asks the House to do something. Therefore, it is up to the Government to explain the motion—to move it, to tell the House what it is all about and then to ask the House to agree with it. It is ridiculous for anonymous Government Back Benchers—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must not have shouting from sedentary positions in the debate.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was intervening on my right hon. Friend. I wish to be brief, but it is nonsensical for those on the Government Back Benches to suggest that, if I keep quiet, the Minister may explain matters in his winding-up speech. A motion that is moved by the Government should be explained by a Minister at the outset.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In his helpful intervention, he pointed out that the motion is tabled in the name of none other than the Leader of the House. I have no criticism of the Leader of the House—
It being 10 o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

COMMITTEES
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
Ordered,

COMMITTEES
  EUROPEAN SECURITY
  That Rosemary McKenna be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Patrick Hall be added to the Committee.
  ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE
  That Mr. Paul Truswell be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Christine Russell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Animals (Government Policy Co-ordination)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
10 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful to the House for allowing me this opportunity to debate what is a very important issue. I am pleased that the rules of the House protect a slot such as this from the time-wasting piffle of the past 25 minutes.
In my office, we took side bets about which Minister would respond to this debate. I was successful in anticipating that it would be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, that shows that there is considerable doubt, even among those interested in these matters, about who is co-ordinating animal policy for the Government—assuming that someone is. Had I known which Minister was to reply to the debate I would have given details of the points that I intended to raise. However, I hope that the Minister read my helpful article in the Daily Express today, in which I was particularly kind about him.
I wish to draw to the House's attention the lack of co-ordination between Departments on animal issues. I shall also query the Government's commitment to those issues, especially their use of private Member's Bills rather than Government Bills for legislation. Finally, I shall give credit where it is due for the steps that the Government have taken since they came to office.
I mentioned the lack of co-ordination between Departments. It is not clear whether animal issues are dealt with centrally or departmentally. The Home Office might deal with animal experiments, or hunting; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions might deal with non-domestic wildlife, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might deal with farm animals. The Department of Trade and Industry is interested in animal issues in connection with its negotiations with the World Trade Organisation. The Department of Health is interested in xenotransplantation and related matters. The regional Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also take an interest, while the Ministry of Defence has its own slaughterhouse in Aldershot and runs particularly nasty experiments at Porton Down. That list shows that the Government's response to animal issues is not co-ordinated.
The Minister may say that such criticism is all very well but that there is no problem because each Department knows what it is doing. However, last month I tabled a question on zoo licensing. My question was directed to the Home Office, but I received a letter from the parliamentary branch of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which stated:
"On further consideration the questions on Zoo Licensing that you tabled to the Home Department and which were subsequently transferred to this Department have been transferred back to the Home Department.
This was due to officials deciding, after the questions had been transferred, that the Home Department would be best placed to answer them."
That demonstrates that questions can rattle around between Departments, with no one certain about who is responsible. I am pleased that I identified the Department most likely to be able to answer my questions when I went to the Table Office, but the problem is not unusual.

247
On several occasions, I have drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister the need, because of the departmental spread of responsibility, to co-ordinate Government policy on animal issues. On 2 February, I tabled the following written question:
"To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to rationalise departmental responsibilities for animal issues to achieve better policy co-ordination."
The response from the Prime Minister was:
"Ministers with responsibilities for animal welfare are actively considering what new arrangements may be needed for interdepartmental co-ordination on animal welfare policies and their presentation. An announcement will be made as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 2 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 476W.]
I asked a question pursuant to that on 22 June. The Prime Minister replied that an announcement would be made "as soon as possible". On 31 July 1998, I asked a question in relation to the performance and innovation unit of the Cabinet Office. The reply was that information about animal welfare would be announced "in the autumn".
In July 1999, I asked the Prime Minister why no announcement had yet been made in respect of the co-ordination within the Government of animal welfare policies, when he expected to make such an announcement and if he would make a statement. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"To date, co-ordination between Government Departments has been on an informal basis. However, this will be put on a formal basis this autumn by the establishment of an Interdepartmental Ministerial Group."—[Official Report, 26 July 1999; Vol. 336, c. 29W.]
I then asked on 2 November if the group had been established, what its membership was and so on. I was told that work was under way and that an announcement would be made "shortly".
We have had five or six announcements from the Prime Minister—all promising action "as soon as possible" or "shortly". I am not yet aware of any action that has been taken. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has now asked the Prime Minister about the interdepartmental ministerial group. The answer from the Prime Minister was that an announcement will be made "as soon as possible". We do not seem to have made much progress on co-ordination—despite the fact that the Prime Minister apparently recognises the need for it—in the two years since I raised the issue.
Given the wide spread of responsibilities and the commitment that the Labour party made before the election, this matter should be a priority. It stands out like a sore thumb as needing action. This is not joined-up government.
I am not the only one who is raising this issue. The RSPCA wrote to me this morning to say:
"Since the last general election the RSPCA has had dealings with ministers, and civil servants, from the Home Office, MAFF, DETR, DTI and the Welsh Office—adding up to over 15 Ministers. Of particular concern is the issue of dog legislation which covers MAFF, the Home Office and DETR, meaning that there is no one stop shop for owners, breeders, local authorities and animal charities."
I hope that the case has been proven that there is a need for more co-ordination. How can an animal welfare policy run smoothly and effectively if Departments do not know their respective responsibilities and are seen to be not co-ordinating?
248
I wish to query the Government's commitment to animal issues in a number of respects. My theory is that legislation on animal issues nearly always—there are exceptions, such as the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill this Session—seems to be relegated to Back-Bench Bills. There have been 12 such Bills over the previous two Sessions, only two of which have become law. Of course those Bills are easily sabotaged by Members such as those who contributed to the previous debates.
In particular, I wish to refer to the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. On 28 November 1997, Members of this House voted by 411 to 151 in favour of that excellent Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), which was supported not simply by Members of this House but by the public at large. Even a poll in The Daily Telegraph showed that 78 per cent. of the public were opposed to fox hunting. However, the Bill was lost because Ministers insisted that it should be dealt with as a private Member's Bill. Many Bills that have support in this House are stopped and stymied as a consequence of that decision.
If Labour is committed to banning hunting—as it said in its pre-election literature—why is it insisting on using private Members' Bills? Why is animal legislation—unlike almost everything else in this House—dealt with predominately by private Members' Bills? Why is it not dealt with by Government legislation? I hope that the Bill on fur farming in this Session means that that trend has been broken.
I want to ask the Minister which of the pledges in Labour's pre-election document on the matter have been unmet. The document has a fox on the front, implying that we will have a ban on hunting this Parliament. If we do not, I should perhaps take up that matter wearing my consumer affairs hat.
The document says that Labour will ensure that animals are used only when it is essential for medical and other scientific requirements. Yet Home Office statistics indicate that although almost 2.7 million experiments were carried out on living creatures, only 468,000 were required to be carried out to comply with legislation. The others were not necessary. Can that be justified?
The Labour party also said:
"We will forbid the use of animals in the testing and development of weapons".
I admit that some progress has been made on animal experiments, and I will come to that, but some very unpleasant experiments are still being conducted. I refer in particular to those undertaken by the Ministry of Defence. I do not know how far it follows the same procedures as the Home Office.
The National Anti-Vivisection Society booklet dated May to August 1999 contains a description of a particularly nasty experiment with goats under water—undertaken with the consent, no doubt, of the Ministry of Defence or the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. The booklet says:
"Ten animals were suspended at 200ft for up to an hour before being brought rapidly to the surface. These were killed by lethal injection up to 15 minutes after showing severe reactions such as collapse and paralysis. Seven goats were compressed at 100 feet and held there for 55–60 minutes, then killed before being brought to the surface. None of the goats were anaesthetised during their ordeal."
This is an approved experiment which is still being carried out, for reasons which are at best dubious.

249
I accept that the Government have increased the number of inspectors in this area—but only from 18 to 21, which is not a particularly large increase. The Labour leaflet also said:
"We will support a Royal Commission"
to look at animal experiments. Yet within two or three months of coming to office, the then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) said:
"We do not consider that a royal commission on the use of animals in experiments is necessary at this time."—[Official Report, 30 June 1997; Vol. 297, c. 259.]
It did not take long for that pledge to disappear.
In an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled, Ministry of Defence figures indicated that over-breeding of animals destined for experiments is running at about 80 to 85 per cent. Much more needs to be done about animal experimentation.
We know about the appalling cruelty inflicted on captive animals in the Mary Chipperfield case. We know from the parliamentary all-party animal welfare group of the loopholes in the law that allow circuses to be effectively exempt from the zoo licensing legislation, and the problems that occur as a consequence. We know that winter quarters are exempt. Yet there has been no Government action to deal with these problems.
The Labour document says:
"The conservatives have said that they would not ban live exports even if they could".
That is perfectly true, but it implies that the Labour party would ban them. The Government criticise other parties, but although they may have tightened up conditions on export, the trade continues. I am not saying that live exports can be banned, but that the pre-election leaflet contains a misleading statement.
Consumers should be given more information to enable them to make proper choices. I recently tabled a question on labelling, which was answered by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I asked if the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would prohibit the description "farm fresh eggs" from being used to describe those originally from battery systems. The answer, briefly, was no. Yet last Sunday the Sunday Express published a poll which showed that a quarter of those polled thought, wrongly, that farm fresh eggs meant free range, when normally it means eggs from battery hens—the very opposite of free range. Only 45 per cent. of those polled correctly said that the term meant nothing in particular. So the labelling is not effective in allowing people to make proper choices on grounds of animal welfare. The Government can and should sort that out; I cannot understand why they have not.
There are proven cases of abuse in animal sanctuaries. They are a legal loophole, effectively exempt from proper controls. No one who runs a sanctuary requires inspection or a licence. After I wrote to the Home Office to ask whether the Government would require operators of animal sanctuaries to be licensed, a Minister replied, to put it briefly, no. The RSPCA has highlighted the example of an animal sanctuary in Crewe where 140 dead or decomposing animals were found this year. Yet no crime had been committed, except under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which provides a fall-back position.
250
Pet shops are also inadequately controlled by the Government. The RSPCA noted a record 68 cruelty convictions over the past year against pet shops. There were only 26 in the previous year. The RSPCA has called for tighter action. An article in The Times two weeks ago—my cuttings are all recent—was headlined "Pet chain staff brutally killed sick animals", and the Minister will be as horrified as I was by that. Tighter regulation is required.
I do not want to be entirely negative. The Government have taken steps, and they have tried hard on farm animals by pushing through controls on battery hens. The Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 was a private Member's Bill that received their support. They have rightly maintained a hard line on whaling. They have acted correctly over animal experiments, and have pushed the sentient beings aspect of the treaty of Rome. They are also reducing fur farming, moving towards the end of lethal dose 50 testing and outlawing cosmetic testing and the use of certain species.
It would be wrong to say that the Government have done nothing. However, they have not lived up to the promises made in their own leaflet, which was well received before the election and which was written by the Minister himself. The action taken has been too little, too infrequent, too unimportant and too disjointed. If the Government would co-ordinate animal welfare policy better, we might have better and quicker legislation which would be to their credit.
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue and glad that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) applied for his Adjournment debate. We need to set straight some issues, particularly concerning the hon. Gentleman's article in the Daily Express. His article was kind to me, and I appreciate that; however, it was the only thing that I appreciated in the article. I was appalled by the hon. Gentleman's tone as he accused the Government of a string of broken promises.
No Government have done more for animal welfare in such a short time. That is not only my opinion—the all-party associate group on animal welfare, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member and officer, takes that view. I am delighted that we have been joined for the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey), who does an excellent job of chairing the group. The group is considering several issues, and has produced reports on matters, including circuses, which are being considered by the Government. Animal experimentation is among the issues being considered by a wider group of people so that we can review the process.
The attitude expressed in the hon. Gentleman's article is part of what makes people cynical about politicians. It is easy to criticise, particularly when one is a member of a group such as the Liberal Democrats, who are in no position to deliver. I could also offer the gentle criticism that the Liberal Democrats are not unknown for saying one thing to one person and another to another.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had contributed to animal welfare by introducing a Bill on fur farming. He spoke critically, as though the Government had blocked that aim. We did block the Bill—because it would have

251
banned only the keeping of mink. Other animals, such as arctic foxes, are also kept for their fur. Indeed, that applies to a whole range of species. We blocked the Bill because it would not have worked; it was not up to the job.
The hon. Gentleman talked about co-ordination. He must know that when the Government considered introducing measures to ban fur farming, I invited him and representatives of other opposition parties to talk to me about how to advance matters. When he introduced his Bill, he did not talk to me about how it could be made workable. He, too, needs a few lessons in joined-up government.
I am extremely proud of the Labour leaflet to which the hon. Gentleman referred; no party has proposed as comprehensive a programme as that. However, that programme cannot be delivered overnight; it cannot be delivered in one year. Much of it depends on primary legislation, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficulties with that. Of the 30 key pledges in that leaflet, 19 have been implemented, eight are being implemented and only three are pending. That is a pretty good record for two and a half years.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for a committee to co-ordinate animal welfare policy. He knows as well as I do that no one Minister in the structure of the Government has overall responsibility for animal welfare; animal welfare is devolved across several Ministries. That is a problem for the Government. It is easy for the Opposition, because they need only one spokesperson to deal with that issue. However, we are considering the establishment of a committee to co-ordinate and overview the presentation of Government policy and to discuss such matters among ourselves. Ministers have already held such discussions. Each Department is working on the delivery of the pledges in that leaflet and on the improvements in animal welfare to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I was also surprised that, in his Daily Express article, the hon. Gentleman stated that the Government had introduced no Bills on animal welfare. However, as he has just pointed out, the Queen's Speech included a Bill to ban fur farming. That is a radical step, which enjoys much popular support. I would have thought that he would have been aware of the measures on animal welfare in the Queen's Speech, but he made factual errors in his article.
When I read the article and heard the hon. Gentleman's speech this evening, I was reminded of the Monty Python sketch, "What have the Romans ever done for us?". The hon. Gentleman was saying something like that. He said, in effect, "What the Government are doing is disgraceful—apart from what they are doing on animal experimentation and on the treaty of Rome". Perhaps he would be interested to hear about some of the steps that the Government have taken in only two and half years.
Measures include changes to the treaty of Rome—to change the definition of animals as sentient beings. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that. We have introduced a general directive on farm animal welfare—a UK initiative that applies throughout the European Union. We have promoted an agreement to phase out battery cages—another UK initiative in the Council of Ministers. We have introduced new welfare codes for sheep. Broiler hens are next on the list; new stocking densities will be among the forthcoming measures.
252
There will be new guidelines on the welfare of animals at markets and new training standards for those dealing with the transport and handling of livestock. We implemented the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 and led calls for welfare issues to be considered by the World Trade Organisation, including such matters as labelling. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there should be international and national measures. We have introduced new standards of veterinary inspection for live exports and tighter regulations on such exports. We took the difficult step of refusing to approve journey plans for long-distance transport in the summer. Some of the incidents uncovered by Compassion in World Farming were quite outrageous, and we drew them to the attention of the Governments concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government gave no approval for such journeys in such temperatures—nor shall we do so.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we have introduced a Bill to ban fur farming. We have reached agreement on the banning of religious slaughter anywhere except in a licensed slaughterhouse—we are one of the few countries to do that—and we achieved it with the co-operation of religious minority groups. I am most grateful for their co-operation and hope to build on it in relation to similar welfare issues.
We supported a Bill to deal with puppy farms, as the hon. Gentleman noted. The UK promoted an initiative to ban drift nets on the high seas, where they kill dolphins. There is new protection for marine mammals in UK waters. Basking sharks are protected by CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Through the International Whaling Council, we have supported the ban on the use of electric lamps in whaling.
We sent a new circular to local authorities, reminding them of their powers to inspect and regulate circuses. We have increased resources to monitor and regulate animal experiments. We set up a forum to discuss animal experiments with non-governmental organisations, which was widely welcomed. We have banned the testing of cosmetics on animals—we are one of the few countries to do so. We have banned the use of great apes and dogs in testing. We have banned the lethal dose 50 test and tests on animals for tobacco, alcohol and weapons research.
I do not know the details about goats. I do know that some of the research is related to chemical warfare, which of course has implications for civilians as well as for the military. Sadly, it is the type of research that we must take seriously and, although we are always looking for alternatives, in some cases, at the moment, it is difficult to find alternatives to animals.
The Government drove forward agreement in the European Union on a zoo directive. We set up a zoo forum with all the organisations involved—welfare groups, vets and zoos—to raise standards in zoos. We have banned deer hunting on all Forestry Commission land. We have promised drafting support and Government time to ensure that if a Bill to ban hunting is passed on a free vote, it will have the chance to proceed. It is a private Member's Bill because we are committed to a free vote—I believe that, on such issues, it is absolutely right that there should be a free vote.
We have played a key role internationally, in the Council of Europe, on animal welfare, with some success. People look to us for a lead in the Convention on

253
International Trade in Endangered Species and in the International Whaling Commission, in which we argue for better international protection of endangered species. We are introducing a Bill to strengthen protection of wildlife sites and measures to implement biodiversity action plans.
So—apart from that, what have the Government done for animal welfare?
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I appreciate the genuine motivation of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) in asking these questions, with no support whatever from the Conservative Benches. However, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is a question not of "What have the Romans done for us?", but of "What have the Romans not done for us?" There is always more to do.
Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having gone through what I believe is an impressive record for two and a half years, I would not want to give the impression that we are complacent about what must be done. There is a great deal more to be done in our national legislation and in European legislation. I absolutely accept that, but we cannot do it overnight. However, this is action not words—we are delivering on the promises that we made about what we would do on animal welfare. I am very proud of our record, and I am more than pleased to stand on that record and defend it.
No Government in history have attempted to set up a committee for co-ordinating animal welfare policy. We believe that it is important because we want to make progress on animal welfare. We recognise that we have more to do and we do not want to let the momentum drop on animal welfare issues. Much work remains to be done.
The group is intended to draw together those Ministers who have particular responsibilities for animal welfare. Its purpose will be to oversee the animal welfare work of
254
the different Departments and ensure that their activities contribute coherently to the broader Government strategy, thereby advancing animal welfare standards across all Departments. The Ministers concerned are from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office. I pay tribute to my colleagues in those Departments for the work that they have been doing in pushing these issues forward.
The committee has already met twice, informally, to consider the practicalities. An announcement will be made as soon as arrangements have been made for the devolved Administrations to participate, because we want to involve them as well. If we are to have a national policy on animal welfare—and, of course, it is a national issue—the devolved Administrations should have a say. We want to involve them in the committee.
I very much hope that the hon. Member for Lewes—who, I accept, has a sincere interest in animal welfare—will reflect on what he has said and written, because it is unfair and does not acknowledge what the Government have done in delivering major animal welfare progress on several different fronts: nationally, in Europe and internationally. Even while we have been doing that, we have found time for Ministers to liaise informally more widely among themselves than has ever been the case.
We have a very good record. I stress that I am not complacent about it; I fully accept that there is more to do. I also accept that sometimes things move very slowly in Government, for all sorts of reasons—legal and procedural reasons and consultation with different bodies. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we now have devolved Administrations. However, I can assure him that we shall make progress by setting up the co-ordinating committee. It is all part of our commitment to improving animal welfare and a record which, I would argue, no Government in history can equal.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Human Organs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for this opportunity to participate in a debate on the removal, donation and transplantation of human organs.
The debate follows in the wake of the tragic Alder Hey case in Bristol, in which children's organs were removed, allegedly without their relatives' consent. I should make it perfectly clear at the outset that I do not believe that anybody could condone such behaviour. Whatever the status of the law—whether it remains as it is or is changed—I do not believe that anybody would wish to remove organs from any deceased person if the relatives concerned did not wish that to happen.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I should like to make a little progress and at least introduce the subject before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The debate follows a previous debate in the House so excellently opened by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I am delighted to see him in his place today, because few hon. Members know more about the subject than he does. Indeed, before the debate in the House, he proposed a debate at the British Medical Association conference, as a result of which the BMA adopted, for the first time, a policy of calling on the Government to change the general presumption in favour of opting into a system of organ donation.
Mr. Dalyell: Before telling us that we should not condone something, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has talked to the doctors at Alder Hey so as to hear their side of the story?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have had correspondence with them, but I have not discussed the matter with them personally. However, it must be a general presumption that, where the relatives do not wish organs to be donated, those wishes should be respected at what is a time of great sadness and grieving.
The debate is set against a worldwide background of a shortage of cadaveric organ donors, and waiting lists are lengthening all over the world. They currently stand at some 60,000 in the United States, 13,000 in Europe and 6,000 in the United Kingdom. More tragically still, there are more than 4,000 kidney dialysis patients, 1,000 of whom are under 30, whose quality of life—indeed, life expectancy—could be transformed by a transplant operation. I have to say that most will remain disappointed.
2WH
The challenge is to ensure that everyone in society is given the opportunity to think constructively and sensitively about whether they would like to donate their organs in the event of their untimely death, while ensuring that their relatives and dependents are fully aware of their views. Given the enormous benefit that recipients gain, it is surprising that only 26 per cent. of adults in this country have obtained a donor card, and that only 18 per cent admit to carrying one. Yet surveys have shown that, when people are asked about organ donations, 70 per cent. of the population would be willing to donate. Death is something that many of us find hard to contemplate. The removal of our organs after death, at a time when our relatives are grieving, is even more difficult to contemplate.
It is worth recapitulating how the present system operates and the legal framework under which it does so. The Human Tissue Act 1961 stipulates the two circumstances in which organs may be removed—where there has been a specific request to that effect by the deceased person or, in the absence of such a request, if there is no reason to believe that the deceased expressed an objection and the relatives also do not object. That was the point that I was making in my opening remarks when the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) intervened. In other words, the deceased, or his or her relatives, must positively state that they wish to have the organs removed.
There is a legal argument, which will need to be tested in the courts at some stage, as to who is legally in possession of the body. It is usually presumed to be the hospital until the body is claimed by those with a greater claim—namely, the relatives. The problem then arises as to which relatives take precedence in that respect. Irrespective of the law, it would be unacceptable to remove organs unless the relatives were all agreed on that.
In some European countries the presumption is reversed, so that those who positively object will not be considered eligible for organ donation. The Government—including the Minister of State, who is here today—have ruled out that change in presumption on the basis that countries that have it, such as Italy, do not have a higher donation rate. However, I suspect that in the case of Italy that is for other reasons—for example, poor procedure and lack of public awareness. On this occasion, I agree—unusually—with the Deputy Prime Minister, who recently, during Prime Minister's questions, said:
"Ministers have continually said that we shall consider all suggestions for improving transplant rates, but any proposed measures in that sensitive area will have to command public confidence and support."—[Official Report, 30 June 1999; Vol. 334, c. 343.]
That is something around which all hon. Members could unite.
On a positive note, what could be done to improve the present system under the current legislation? The donor card system was introduced in 1971. It is purely voluntary, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who will speak in the debate, has some excellent proposals for publicising that. To put it rather brutally, the butchers' offal approach of the tick as to which organs one wishes to donate—eyes, heart, lungs, pancreas and so on— tends to put many people off signing a donor card. I hope that the Minister will, if

3WH
nothing else, consider whether the donor card wording can be altered so that one merely ticks the box if one wishes to donate any organs. I can see no reason why there should be a distinction between different organs. As a start, all Members of Parliament and all those connected with the medical profession should volunteer to carry one. I hope that all Members of Parliament will pledge to do that as soon as possible.
The voluntary consent part of the driving licence is almost unknown to most people. When I first passed my test, far too many years ago to remember, I signed the organ donation part of the licence and put a little note in with it. However, that was a long time ago, and few people now realise that the driving licence contains such a provision. I am sure that the Government could do much more to publicise that avenue to allow people to inform those concerned that they wish to have their organs donated.
The national organ register should be properly updated and overhauled. It should be computerised and made available on the internet, and the Government should be much more proactive in making the contents of the register known. Robert Sells, the professor of transplant surgery at the Royal Liverpool University hospital, recently stated in a British Kidney Patient Association silver lining appeal brochure of December 1999, that in Spain, in 1986, the number of organ donations was drastically improved by introducing into hospital intensive care units a co-ordinator who was directly responsible to the chief executive of each hospital for counselling those who might be prepared to donate their organs. That dramatically increased the number of organ donations from six people per million in the population in 1985 to 31 per million in 1988. As a result, Spain's transplant waiting lists have fallen. Waiting times for liver and heart transplants are considerably shorter, and Spain now exports organs to other European countries. That is a very positive development, which the Minister may wish to consider. Robert Sells said:
"It seems clear beyond doubt to practically every transplant surgeon world wide that the adoption of such a system would produce an immediate increase in organ donation. I believe the effects would be particularly beneficial in this country where there are too few co-ordinators, who generally work within inadequate job descriptions and with inappropriate salaries."
It is arduous work, of course, and, in Spain, co-ordinators work within the system for only three to four years, after which they move on to other specialties in the medical profession. The introduction of properly trained co-ordinators who could counsel relatives at a time of grief and distress and advise on organ donation would be a positive step forward.
I call on the Minister to establish a task force with a cross-departmental remit, which could consider organ donations in the light of the cost to the NHS of, for example, daily dialysis. It could also consider whether the law should be changed. At the moment, the general presumption is that those who wish to donate organs should opt in to the system. That general presumption should be reviewed. As I said, the British Medical Association has, for the first time, changed its policy on
4WH
the matter. I know that the Minister and his colleagues have said in the House that there would be no advantage in changing the general presumption. I am not sufficiently qualified to judge, but experts should consider the matter in depth.
The third job for the task force would be to consider the issue of public awareness and education. It would have a remit to employ public relations consultants to consider whether a general advertising and publicity splurge would be of benefit. Such a campaign took place in 1995 and 1998 with only limited success, although it was perhaps not planned and conceived as well as it should have been. A campaign to increase awareness of the voluntary systems of donor cards, licence forms and the national organ donation register could have considerable benefit. It would enable people to consider the issue well in advance of an untimely death. The problem with the present system is that, when someone dies, people naturally suffer much distress and grief, and they often make decisions that they later regret. Therefore, if the public were educated well in advance of such events, it would be a great benefit to all concerned.
Life is short. No one knows when a life-threatening emergency condition is likely to occur. Such a condition could occur to any of us tomorrow. I hope that the Minister has listened to my speech, and that a few notches of progress will follow. I pledge to apply for a donor card today. I hope that all Members of Parliament, and everyone connected with the medical profession, will, as a matter of course, carry donor cards, and make it known to their relatives that they have done so.
10.13 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The House is in the debt of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for his choice of subject and for his constructive speech.
I should like to begin by putting a question to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. What are the Department of Health's latest figures on the shortage of organs? In this Room last night, Professor Robert Winston was asked about organ shortage, and replied that the American figure was much more accurate than the British one. He put the American figure at 600,000. If we were to divide that according to population, our figure would be 140,000 to 150,000. Would the Department of Health accept such an estimate?
I have a history of interest in this matter. On several occasions in the 1970s I tabled a Bill to allow hospitals to take the organs of anyone other than those who had contracted out through the centre at Bristol. As often happens with Members of Parliament, my interest arose from a case in my constituency—an especially poignant case when I was a new Member of Parliament. It concerned a 23-year-old teacher called Grant Allen, whose parents begged for an organ to save his life. We did not succeed—there was no matching tissue to be had—but I undertook to those people that, as long as I remained a Member of Parliament, I would take an interest in the subject. It is tragic that so many useful organs go into the incinerator.
I believe passionately that decisions on these matters—as the hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned—should not be made at the point of maximum grief. In 1969, I was

5WH
parliamentary private secretary in the Department of Health to Richard Crossman when Sir Hector Maclennan, the distinguished doctor and father of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), chaired a report on organ donation. The recommendations of the Maclennan committee were somewhat ambiguous, but opting out was left as an option. With the encouragement of the then chief medical officer, Sir George Godber, and his deputy, Dr. Henry Yellowless, I conducted a survey—which took 42 days—of 1,000 people in my constituency. A Member of Parliament can talk confidentially as a pollster cannot, and I remember the results of the survey very well. Of those 1,000 people, 372 would have agreed to the opting-out scheme, while 316 preferred the voluntary system. A further 108 were passionately against it, on various different grounds. Of those, three state registered nurses separately told me to do something about the common hernia first, but that was 30 years ago. Expectations have risen since then, and people think that they have the right to sophisticated and, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, extremely expensive operations. Will my hon. Friend consider whether the opting-out scheme should at least be tried? Hospitals would be able to take the organs of anyone other than those who had opted out during their lifetime, after clinical death has been established by two separate doctors, neither of whom is the renal surgeon.
My friend Roy Calne briefed me on the proposals that I put forward 30 years ago. The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to Robert Sells; he had great reservations about my proposal on the ground that it might lessen the number of available organs. I will not hide the fact that there was a considerable difference of opinion among distinguished renal surgeons, and I do not pretend that all the argument is one way. Given a desperate shortage of organs, different expectations, and the greater chance of success, however, the Department of Health should consider the introduction of an opting-out scheme.
Ironically, the flow of organs was lessened by a new piece of legislation—the seatbelt legislation. Thankfully, that has reduced markedly the number of deaths from motor accidents. Therefore, organs, especially those of young people, are not as available as they were before.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in 1997, the French changed the law in favour of an opt-out system?
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, I am. Other countries have done so, and the hon. Gentleman's description of the Spanish scheme deserves a long and detailed answer. The French have succeeded, as has Israel, and with considerable effect. It is ironic that opposition comes from strange places. When I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the matter for a second time, the right hon Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir Edward Heath), the then Prime Minister, stayed to hear the debate, which was most unusual. Afterwards, he said that, although he personally sympathised with my view, I would never persuade Keith Joseph, the then Secretary of State for Social Services. I was a bit vexed, therefore, to discover
6WH
that the former chief rabbi, the late Sir Immanuel Rehobovits, who passionately opposed the idea, managed to persuade Keith Joseph against it, even though Israel had introduced a successful system. There are a variety of views, but the hon. Gentleman has made an important point.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that it was Sir Keith Joseph who introduced the voluntary donor card system.
Mr. Dalyell: Yes, he introduced that system, but it has proved far less successful than he anticipated because none of us wants to contemplate our own demise. People forget to carry donor cards because they take the view that, if they are to step under the proverbial bus, at least it will not happen this afternoon.
The issue is complicated. A number of those who, in the heat of the moment, refused to donate the organs of loved ones have subsequently said, "If we had thought about the issue, we should of course have liked to help someone else." Many such people take the rather curious view that the organs of a deceased loved one are still alive. The subject provokes strong emotions. On conducting my survey, I discovered great differences in attitudes towards, for example, the kidney and the heart. I vividly recall one woman who told me, "They can take what they like from my husband, but not his heart. The heart is something different—that belongs to me." One might say that that is irrational, and that the heart is only a pump, but such feelings nevertheless remain.
Last night, a fascinating meeting about the question of therapeutic cloning took place in this Hall. Perhaps the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who was present, intends to discuss it. Professor Lord Winston, who was in attendance, argued that we must consider generating organs for the future. He explained the advantages of transplanting cardiac cells, for example, that could assist bladder transplants, and therapeutic cloning. He called for facilitating directed cell culture and emphasised that, potentially, embryonic cells could be used directly for specific purposes, particularly the improvement of chromosomal disorders. He cited the transplant of neurals, which would help in the treatment of Alzheimer's. Those of us who saw Mohammad Ali on television the other evening will recognise the possibilities of such developments.
The growth and use of tissues and embryonic cells to cope with illnesses such as mitochondrial disorders are complicated issues. Has the Department of Health considered the possible legislative consequences of the remarkable developments at Hammersmith hospital, Imperial college and a number of other centres throughout Britain, not least in Edinburgh and Glasgow, with which I am particularly familiar? In view of the limited time, I close with that question.
10.25 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have one point to which I want briefly to draw the Chamber's attention. To a large extent, I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and would countenance an opt-out scheme rather than an

7WH
opt-in scheme. However, having spoken to a number of surgeons, it would appear that relatives refuse organ donations only rarely. As the hon. Gentleman noted, to some extent the supply of potential donors has declined because of improvements in the treatment of road traffic accident victims, a decline in the severity of such injuries, and a reduced number of intracranial vascular ruptures.
However, the use of elective ventilation has helped partially to restore that supply. On behalf of Mr. Curry, who is a constituent of mine, I recently wrote to the Minister on the matter. In 1993, when elective ventilation was in its infancy, pioneering work was undertaken at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. With relatives' consent, patients who were close to death were placed on ventilators, enabling their organs to be made available for transplant. Had they been allowed to die, it would not have been possible to recover those organs. Elective ventilation increased the availability of organs at that pioneering centre by 50 per cent. in 1993.
However, elective ventilation was reluctantly abandoned by the Department on the basis of legal opinion. I do not know whether that opinion related to the Human Tissues Act or the presumption in common law that medical treatment must benefit the patient. Irrespective of the consent of relatives, a person who is close to death cannot be placed on a ventilator for someone else's benefit. That is an anomalous situation. We allow minors—children under the age of proper, rational consent—to donate bone marrow for the benefit of others. They are subjected to a medical process that is not exclusively for their own benefit. In other words, the underlying principle is exactly the same as for elective ventilation. If we would not dream of doing without bone marrow transplants, why has the law been used to put an end to elective ventilation?
I urge the Minister to amend the law, so that we can overcome the presumption in common law against elective ventilation and restore what was a promising supply of potential organs for donation.
10.30 am
Dr. Evan Harris: I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for introducing the debate, and also to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his contributions over many years, and for the help and advice that he has given me. I also want to comment on a provocative and thoughtful—I will not say uncharacteristic—contribution from the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
It is important to make it clear that different issues relating to this matter are discussed in the media. First, there are the decisions about the use of tissues that have to be taken at a coroner's post mortem. Under current law, when cause of death needs to be established, there is no opportunity for relatives to say that there should not be a coroner's post mortem and that such tissues that are needed to make a diagnosis should not be removed. I do not think that there is a general call for relatives to be able to veto the actions of a coroner and a pathologist in establishing the cause of death.
There is also the matter, both ethically and in practice, of the retention of organs for research purposes. We deprecate the fact that in at least one hospital it has been
8WH
common practice after post mortems—whether coroners' post mortems or others—to retain organs for research purposes, or any other purposes, without consent being sought from the surviving relatives of adults, or from the parents of dead children. It is accepted as good medical practice—the only ethical medical practice—to seek that consent. Those research projects should seek ethical consent through a local research ethics committee, which would insist that adequate, informed consent procedures exist for such relatives, as did the committee on which I sat for some years.
As the hon. Member for Cotswold recognised, those situations are different from the issue of organ donation for transplant purposes, which has occupied most of our time in this debate so far. The Human Tissue Act 1961 must at least be considered for significant repair because of the lack of clarity in its wording, and the problems that that causes for people awaiting transplants. I can give the hon. Member for Linlithgow the figures he seeks, as, I am sure, can the Minister. In 1998, 7 per cent. fewer organ transplants were carried out in the United Kingdom than in 1997, and in the same period the waiting list for those requiring organ transplants to save or transform their lives increased by 3 per cent.
The increasing gap between supply and demand appears to be a continuing trend, and figures more recent than those that I quoted show a continuing decline in the number of organ transplants carried out, and an increase in the number of people on the transplant waiting list. The number of people on the waiting list is the tip of the iceberg, compared with the number who would benefit from organ transplantation. Because so few people are likely to have a transplant, relatively few are given the false promise of being placed on a transplant waiting list.
As I said when I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the matter to an empty Government Front Bench—the Minister has assiduously attended discussions on this issue since then—a silent tragedy is taking place. Thousands of people are dying for want of an organ that could save or transform their lives, while many organs are being buried or cremated with their hosts. Many of those hosts, had they thought about the issue and had an opportunity to register their view, would not have objected to their organs being used in the event of their death to save the lives of others. The tragedy of such preventable deaths is a stark one, not only for those of us who have worked in medicine on both sides of the donation and transplantation field, but for those on transplant waiting lists.
One partial solution to the problem would be a shift, after a suitable period of education to obtain broad public consent, to a system of presumed consent. That would give people several opportunities to register the fact that they did not wish to have their organs used, whether through driving licences, tax returns, electoral registration or at post offices. Their views would be respected; they would be registered on a database which would be checked. That would strongly encourage, if not force, people to consider the issue of death before they might wish to do so, especially young people who are often tragically in a position to donate following traumatic injury. They think that they are immortal and do not like to think about death.

9WH
Public opinion polls ask whether people prefer the current system, in which they do not have to think about the issue unless choosing to seek a donation card, to one in which they would have to discuss the matter with relatives and register their views. The result of those polls, as the Government will suggest, may well be that people prefer the status quo. Of course people will say that, but we must recognise that there are other interests at stake—those of patients awaiting an organ transplant and their relatives.
The evidence suggests that, if that system were introduced properly and carefully, the supply of organs could be increased. That would be one benefit. A second benefit would be that the wishes of the donor would be paramount, and the tragic situations that arise at the moment would no longer do so. At present, in a large number of cases, no one knows the view of the potential donor; and relatives, at the height of their grief, have to second—guess that view. I can tell the hon. Member for New Forest, West that as a result of surveys—I do not think that this is contentious we know that, in about a third of such cases, relatives refuse consent when asked. I do not necessarily blame them for that, although we know from Spanish surveys that at least 30 per cent. of them regret that refusal a year later. That is not surprising: I would not trust myself to make those decisions at the start of a grieving period. Therefore, the presumed consent system would not only increase the supply of organs, which would save lives, but give primacy to the views of the donor, which is critical.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is a doctor, and I am not. Is it not asking rather a lot of doctors, when they have been struggling to save someone, to summon the energy to ask such terrible questions? Those questions would have to be asked within half an hour, otherwise deterioration would set in. I would not blame doctors for not putting those questions to relatives at such a time.
Dr. Harris: The people who have to seek consent—doctors, nurses and transplant co-ordinators—do a valuable job, and it is part of their role. Learning how to achieve consent should be, and in most places is, part of their training. As a doctor, I find it much easier to approach relatives when the views of the deceased are known. In my forecast scenario, one could explain to the relative that their loved one had not opted out of the scheme and might well have discussed the matter with them. In the light of that, one could ask the relative whether they had any subsequent knowledge that the deceased did not want his or her organs to be donated. The deceased person's views would be of primary concern. Only in the event of a fundamental objection from a relative should the presumed consent opt-out system be overruled.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: On the issue of presumed consent, what does the hon. Gentleman think of the idea that solicitors should be encouraged to ask clients of sound mind drawing up a will to include a positive clause stating that they wished to have their organs donated in the event of their death?
Dr. Harris: I support any way of making people think about the matter, but access to a will at such a time is not
10WH
reasonable, except in a small minority of circumstances. However, if that promotes discussion of people's wishes with their relatives—the filling in of donor cards by the minority of people who carry them often does so—that can only be desirable.
Dr. Liam Fox: On this interesting part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, does he have any data to share with the House on the experience of countries with an opt-out system and the relative shortage or otherwise of organs? If he does not have the information, I am sure that the Minister can provide it. One fact to be considered when examining an opt-out system is whether it has worked in other countries.
Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman makes a critical point. The BMA has adopted that policy. I would not want the scheme to be introduced if there was not clear evidence that it would increase the supply of organs if introduced in the most effective way, following best practice in Europe, where practice is variable. There should be a Government-sponsored programme of education and research because the worst that could happen would be to have this controversial debate—my postbag shows that it is controversial—with no evidence available. I have examined the Belgium system and there was a clear increase in the number of available organs. Useful controls were Holland, which has a similar culture, and some hospitals in Belgium, which did not change the system, but were subject to the same education process and publicity about the change in the law. Neither experienced the increase in organ donation that the Belgian hospitals which did switch experienced.
In a consensus statement on meeting the organ shortage, the Council of Europe stated:
"Presumed consent laws, when fully accepted, seem to benefit donation".
It went on to refer to a Belgian paper by Dr. Roels, which set out the evidence. Professor Gells, who was cited earlier, was a member of the European transplantation forum, headed by Professor Kennedy. In a paper in The Lancet a few years ago it stated why it believed that a presumed consent system could work.
I turn to the existing possibilities for improving the current system which the Government should consider. The donor register is a useful idea, but is unwieldy. People on the register are never taken off, even after they have died. There is no automatic link between certification of death and removal from the register. That cannot be sensible. People may change their names when they marry and for other reasons, but there is no link between the marriage certification system and the donor register.
The Minister's colleagues at the Home Office and the Treasury have been apprised of the situation by the campaign group, Donor 2001, which proposed the use of electoral registration forms for registration on the donor register. In Taunton Deane borough, that produced remarkable results, with an increase in the number of people registering as donors—10,000 new registrations from a total of 44,000 people. That shows that presumed consent is not the only idea in my locker. I pay tribute to Councillor John Meikle, who promoted the scheme. People in Taunton Deane, as well as Donor 2001, are frustrated that the Home Secretary is not as

11WH
enthusiastic about extending the scheme as the Government have been about extending all sorts of schemes with less strong data for the success of the pilot schemes.
Elective ventilation is an interesting idea. As the hon. Member for New Forest, West suggested, under common law treatment should only be given for the benefit of the patient. Another practical problem is the chronic shortage of intensive care beds. Someone might have opted for future elective ventilation, but ventilators or intensive care beds might not be available. Despite my support for presumed consent, I believe that the Government could increase the supply of organ donors at a stroke simply by increasing the resources for, and the number of beds on, intensive care units. There is medical consensus for that. The legal barrier to elective ventilation could be circumvented if the law were changed to allow the existing donor card to offer an opt-in to future elective ventilation. Consent would then be given for that intervention, albeit not for the benefit of the person concerned.
The increasing use of non-beating heart donations for kidney donation needs to be considered. The Government should promulgate a debate on the ethics and practicalities of xenotransplantation before irrational opposition on health grounds and spurious ethical grounds takes over the argument as it took over the argument on genetically modified organisms.
Therapeutic cloning should also be considered. It was disappointing to many scientists and clinicians when the Government rejected the advice of their advisory groups—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Advisory Committee on Genetic— Modification—and set up yet another working party to consider whether research would be useful. The usual way of finding out whether research would be useful is to do that research. A huge amount of work remains to be done on transplantation and donation. The Royal College of Surgeons produced a report, the author of which was my constituent, Professor Sir Peter Morris, on organ transplantation. It suggested that, in addition to donor issues, a series of issues needs to be considered, including the organisation of transplantation services, an increased supply of junior doctors to become transplant surgeons and a national transplant service and strategy to deliver increased efficiency using available organs. I hope that the Minister will respond to that working party and adopt many, if not all, of its recommendations.
I thank the hon. Member for Cotswold once again for introducing the debate.
10.46 am
Mr. Nick Harvey: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on introducing the debate. I saw the title of his intended debate last week and thought that it would provide the opportunity to bring together several different issues, but when I listened to the hon. Gentleman this morning, he suggested a closer connection between the issues than actually exists.
Hon. Members may know that, for several years, I have been involved with the Bristol heart action group, which brings together the relatives of those whose babies
12WH
died in the tragedy at Bristol royal infirmary. In that connection, I have recently taken an interest in events at Alder Hey hospital, and there is now a connection between the two groups of parents.
The hon. Member for Cotswold said that no one was accusing doctors of deliberately removing organs without the consent of relatives—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I did not say that. I said that it was not acceptable for any organs to be removed when the consent of the relatives had not been properly given.
Mr. Harvey: I am sorry. I misrepresented the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for correcting me.
It would be too benign an interpretation of what happened at Bristol, Alder Hey and, I suspect, many other places, if not generally, to say that doctors have not removed organs without the consent of relatives. That seems to have happened on an extraordinarily wide scale and has, understandably, caused great alarm. I have not seen any suggestion that the purpose of that removal of organs was in any way to assist with the supply of organs for transplantation. In a macabre way, that would almost have been more acceptable.
The organs were retained principally for research. The Royal College of Pathologists is conducting a review of its guidelines and issued a document on which it is consulting. That document makes it clear that there are a number of sound medical reasons for retaining organs. It describes the ideal practice for pathologists when explaining to relatives the possible reasons for retaining organs and the advantages that might accrue from that. It also stated that, when that is done sensitively but determinedly, it is unusual for relatives not to give permission for organs to be retained. The considerable advantages that that involves include medical research benefits and the fact that a fuller understanding is later available about why the death took place when it did. The document also suggests—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) make the same case. In the article that I referred to earlier, Professor Robert Sells states:
"Although there has been a significant rise in living organ donation during the last two years, 30 per cent. of relatives still object to organs being removed from a bereaved loved one."
That conflicts with the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Harvey: In fairness, we are discussing two slightly different matters. I was discussing retention of organs after a post mortem when there has been a suggestion that doing so may teach us about the medical circumstances of the death. I was not discussing those who died in, for example, accidents.
The royal college has made suggestions about what should be best practice in terms of explaining to and communicating with bereaved relatives. If such an approach were adopted in general, there would not be such a scandal about the retention of organs. However, that approach is not common practice. No one really knows what the scale of organ retention is—it has a chequered pattern throughout the country. Some hospitals that have retained organs on a widespread basis do not know why they are doing it, and in the most bizarre

13WH
cases hospitals have lost documentation about the organs that they have. They might find some years later that they have all sorts of organs about which they had forgotten because they did not have the proper records.
The situation throughout the country is a grim and grizzly picture. The previous Secretary of State rightly instructed the chief medical officer to conduct a national survey to establish, as best he can, a national picture. The Secretary of State helped me to speak to the chief medical officer about that matter; I believe that he has the right approach and that if he can obtain honest, candid and accurate responses from hospital authorities we could form a better idea about what to do next.
This subject involves various strange developments. Parents at Bristol have had to go through three separate phases of grief. They suffered the initial grief of losing a baby unexpectedly. Years after they had got over that, they discovered that the circumstances of their baby's death was part of a wider picture involving the incompetence of medical professionals, which reopened their wounds. Having come to terms with that, they suffered a third grief—they discovered that organs that they believed had been buried or cremated with their child had been retained without their knowledge or permission.
Parents who cremated their babies are in strange legal territory because it is not legally permissible to cremate organs on their own. I am grateful to the Home Office for its response in this regard. When it learned about the parents' distress it adopted—or it encouraged a funeral director to adopt—a pragmatic interpretation of the law in this regard. That enabled people in the south-west and south Wales to go to that funeral director, whose approach disregarded the problem. The Home Office is aware that the subject needs to be revisited in a legal review.
Several hon. Members have already discussed the shortage of organs that are available for transplantation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) appeared to support an opt-out system. The key point, which has been made by the BMA and by my hon. Friend, is that our approach should be considered only after extensive public education, advertising and debate. The decision to go down that road should be made only when the process of education and advertising has advanced considerably. Evidence from other countries suggests that that approach can produce a better supply of organs, which has tangible benefits. There are various reasons why other countries have a better supply, and we need to be aware of them all when we consider the matter.
I was struck by the evidence that the hon. Member for Cotswold quoted about the impact of counselling on the number of people who are prepared to sign up. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and the hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned breakthroughs in scientific advances, which will increase the need and demand for organs. I hope that the Minister of State will discuss that.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) rightly discussed ventilation, which has been stopped on legal grounds. I echo his call on the Minister to consider whether changes in the law might enable us to get around that problem.
14WH
My key point is that I do not believe that there is any connection between this macabre, horrible and widespread practice of organ retention—when the chief medical officer has completed his survey, I suspect that it may be found to have occurred on a larger scale than some press reports have speculated—and transplantation, both of which are serious issues. As many hon. Members said this morning, it is vital to obtain a better supply of organs for transplantation.
Finally, I echo the words of those hon. Members who congratulated the hon. Member for Cotswold on securing a debate on these two interesting issues.
10.57 am
Dr. Liam Fox: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing this debate and on raising several important issues. I also echo the views of the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), who said that we are discussing distinct issues that should not be regarded as being exactly the same.
My constituency shares borders with the relevant Bristol constituencies, and I entirely understand the despair of the parents who are involved. They discovered that their consent had not been sought at the time and later they were not given information about decisions. It is the latter fact that caused them so much grief so late in the day. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said, all hon. Members must accept that the removal of organs for research without proper ethical consent is totally unacceptable. I am sure that there is no difference of opinion in that regard between the political parties.
Our debate today is inevitably tinged with sadness. We are carrying the burden of the hopes of the chronically sick, who want something that we all take for granted—the chance to have a normal life span. We must balance that against the sadness of the untimely death of an otherwise healthy person and the inevitable grief of his or her relatives, who find it difficult to make rational decisions at that time.
A third sadness is also involved—it concerns the small number of people who carry donor cards or who are donor registered. While my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold was speaking, I checked to see whether my donor card was in my wallet, but I discovered that it was not there. I wonder how often that happens. Those of us who believe that we are willing to give any of our organs for transplantation may walk outside and be hit by the proverbial bus, but we may find it difficult to have our wishes carried out. Of course, in that situation we would also be suffering the difficulty of having been hit by a bus.
What reforms should be introduced? The purpose of debates in this Chamber is to raise issues and to give pointers about what should be done. We want the 4,000 patients who are awaiting kidney transplantation and who are on dialysis, and those who suffer from cardiomyopathies and who are awaiting a heart transplant, to be given the chance to have a healthy life style. As several hon. Members have said, we must avoid the heartbreaking situation that involves patients having to watch their chance of life being buried or cremated—they are denied the healthy existence that we all take for granted.

15WH
As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, we are in some ways the victims of our own success. Our success in reducing death from road traffic accidents, not least through our seat belt legislation, has put us into a more difficult position in that we now have fewer organs available for transplantation from otherwise healthy adults. We created that problem through legislation and we have a duty to try to address it.
I would like the Minister to reply to two or three specific points. At the moment, we are all consumed by millennium hysteria and all sorts of frivolous projects for our entertainment are being proposed. I hope that Parliament can give a lead by setting up some projects that will give a chance, not for entertainment, but for survival. We as a population have many contacts with health professionals and next year, as part of the millennium celebrations, I would like the Minister to dedicate a month in which everyone who has contact with a health professional—a GP, a hospital doctor, a pharmacist, or a dentist, for example—is given a form to register as a donor, and in which every health professional tells everyone that he or she comes into contact with what can be achieved, as part of a wider programme of health education. It will not cost anything and will take only a few moments of a health professional's time, but could make a huge difference in terms of public education and understanding.
Will the Minister consult his colleagues to see whether it is possible to include a form with the annual communication that we all receive—those of us who fail to fill in the form on time receive several of them—on electoral registration? It would go to every household, at almost no cost to Government, and increase public awareness of what can be done simply by filling in a form. Those are cost-free measures that cut across Governments and across Departments and are easily achievable, giving vast benefit to all our society, not least to those who need a transplant. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said, we need an updated donor register, using the available information technology, to ensure that the information is always available at our fingertips at the correct time. It is all very well to spend an hour and a half debating the issues—an hour and a half immediately after death is a long time. The decisions have to be made very quickly.
In presenting this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold talked about the difficult position of relatives at a time of great grief and reduced ability to make rational decisions. We all understand that, but it gives all the greater urgency to the proposal for an education project. My hon. Friend referred to the Spanish survey showing the number of people who make a decision that they regret later. I am sure that everyone present sympathises with that plight. It seems to add an unnecessary grief to those who have already undergone the pain of bereavement.
We need to have the political debate on opting out. I understand why Ministers would find that difficult. I have no doubt that the civil servants advising the Minister will be saying, "But Minister, can you imagine the story in the tabloids when for the first time a mother says that her daughter just did not get round to opting out, but always wanted to, and that her organs have
16WH
been taken against her will?" Ministers will face that unpalatable situation and we can all imagine the tabloid treatment that such a case would attract. However, we balance that against the real, on-going tragedy, not of those in elected office, but of those who are being denied the chance of a healthy life because of the shortage of organs for transplantation. We need to put the interests of those people higher up the agenda.
Dr. Harris: I accept the necessity for the balance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but it must be stressed that the system of presumed consent proposed by the BMA could involve a check with relatives—not necessarily to ask their views, but to ask whether they knew of any undisclosed wish on the part of the deceased to opt out. That would underline a respect for the donor's wishes. There will be people who never got round to opting out but who discussed doing so, and that must be recognised since I do not doubt that there might be controversial media coverage of occasional cases with any system.
Dr. Fox: I am sure that that is correct. My point was simply that there will always be political resistance to a Minister, of whatever party, being pilloried in the tabloid press and being made a scapegoat in what may be rather unpleasant coverage.
I would like the Minister to tell us about the evidence from other countries on opting out and what difference it has made to the number of organs available. I note that one of his colleagues said:
"More importantly, there is no evidence from European countries that have an opt-out that it would increase the number of organs available."—[Official Report, 19 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 245.]
I would like to know the basis for that information and whether it can be published by Ministers so that we can have a better-informed debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) mentioned elective ventilation. Again, I would like the Minister to comment on what consideration is being given to that. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned the shortage of intensive care beds; that will be a major practical problem, but perhaps the Minister could deal with the theoretical rather than the practical aspect of that and let us know the Government's thinking on it.
Finally, I hope that our actions and our words today remove a great source of sadness, despair and unnecessary death. We have a chance to give life and there can be no duty on us, as Members of Parliament, greater than that. I hope that we do not fail in that duty.
11.7 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on raising these important matters and on giving us the opportunity to discuss what has turned out to be a wide range of matters relating to organ donation and transplantation—matters which, as all hon. Members have said, touch on complex ethical, moral and legal considerations. I shall try to respond to all the points that have been made.

17WH
The hon. Member for Cotswold expressed his concerns about the developments at Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool and about the issue of the removal of organs. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) also spent considerable time on that point. Both hon. Members made good speeches, with thoughtful and substantial content. It may be helpful if I set some of the issues at Alder Hey into context and offer some thoughts about the legal background to them.
Evidence given to the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry in September indicated that organs removed following post mortems were being stored at hospitals elsewhere in the country, including at Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool. Local investigations at Alder Hey revealed an additional issue, relating to organs allegedly retained in breach of protocols by a pathologist undertaking research into sudden infant death syndrome. Consequently, this debate is set against a background of increasing sensitivities and serious concerns around the protocols governing the retention of tissues and organs at post-mortem examination.
The events at Alder Hey children's hospital are obviously enormously distressing for the families concerned and present major questions about children's organ retention in the NHS. I, as I am sure do all hon. Members, extend my sympathies to all the families concerned in this tragedy. An internal inquiry, which the local trust set up when the issue first came to light, is due to report early in the new year. It is essential that we now seek to restore public confidence in health services at Alder Hey children's hospital, a hospital with a fine reputation for high-quality care for children.
On 3 December, we announced that we would set up an independent inquiry into the events at Alder Hey children's hospital, which will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the end of March next year. That report will be made public. A team comprising a patient's representative, a leading pathologist and someone with an appropriate legal qualification will conduct the inquiry, which will be entirely independent of the hospital. The inquiry will specifically consider what happened at Alder Hey to identify lessons to be learned, and to recommend to the Secretary of State further actions that might be necessary to reform organ retention practices at the hospital and to better support the families affected.
Before the Bristol Royal infirmary and Alder Hey cases became the subject of media attention, my Department and the Royal College of Pathologists had begun work on new guidelines in recognition of the sensitivities around the issue and the need for greater openness. The new guidelines for the retention of tissues at post-mortem examination are being developed in the light of the need for greater openness and better public information, married to best clinical practice. Wide consultation has ensured that the views of patient representatives have been taken on board.
The guidelines represent a dramatic shift in approach, with an emphasis on transparency and sensitive management of the bereaved, which are concerns that we have all referred to today. They also include a new model consent form for bereaved relatives to sign. We hope that the guidelines will be ready for dissemination in the new year, and the Department will clearly need to scrutinise them closely.
18WH
Several hon. Members referred to the present legislation regulating organ removal during post mortems, so it might help if I spoke about those provisions. It will not surprise hon. Members to discover that the legal situation is complex. I do not think that I have ever been asked to make a speech in which I have not been given that to say. The legal situation is always complex—a legacy from lawyers.
As I understand it, the Coroners Act 1988 permits the removal of tissues and organs during the course of a post mortem called for by a coroner even without the agreement or consent of relatives. Rule 9 of the 1984 coroners rules permits the preservation of materials which, in a pathologist's opinion, bear on the cause of death. In relation to coroners' post mortems, organs can be retained only to establish the cause of death and for such time as agreed by a coroner. In Britain, 90 per cent. of post mortems are called for by coroners and are therefore conducted under the 1988 Act.
Hospital post mortems are quite different. The Human Tissue Act 1961 refers to the relative not objecting to the removal of organs. However, the Act does not specifically require the relative's consent before the removal of tissues or organs. The Act therefore makes no provision to determine the purpose for which any retained organs can be used. Previous practice in relation to hospital post mortems may not seem compatible with the modern concept of informed consent.
Mr. Dalyell: I would not try to amend the 1961 Act. Dr. Gavin Thurston, then an inner London coroner, wrote an interesting paper on the problems that face coroners. It was written a long time ago but may have current relevance. Will my hon. Friend ask his officials whether it is somewhere in the departmental archives?
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a legendary memory. I shall certainly make that inquiry and see what we can dig up.
I want to refer to the chief medical officer's inquiry, as several hon. Members have already done so. We asked him in October to investigate the scale of organ retention in the national health service generally, including in children's hospitals, and how NHS pathologists undertake that important work. The report will ensure that clinical practice on the subject throughout the NHS respects the rights and wishes of patients, while enabling the study of illness to benefit patients. We should always bear it in mind that the pathological and clinical examination of tissues and organs is a proper and important function of medical diagnosis and of furthering the understanding of medical science. Of course, as many hon. Members have made clear, those benefits must be balanced against the need for public acceptance and informed individual consent.
The chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, will ensure that lessons from the events at Alder Hey children's hospital can be learned throughout the NHS. As part of his investigation, he is conducting a census of organ retention and practice on consent in all NHS hospitals in England. I am especially grateful to the hon. Member for North Devon for his support of that work. The chief medical officer's inquiry will consider the

19WH
practice of removing and retaining organs as well as the legal framework in which that takes place. Ministers have asked him to provide a comprehensive report on how such matters can be dealt with in future.
Much of our debate has focused on organ transplantation. Patients who might become donors are typically people in intensive care units who have had a sudden brain injury, such as a stroke, or as a result of a road accident. Of course, doctors' principal duty is to make every effort to save a patient's life. If a patient dies despite their efforts and is certified brain stem dead, organ donation can be considered. First, two doctors must be called in who have no connection to the transplantation unit. Each will independently carry out a series of tests to confirm that a patient is brain stem dead. When that has been confirmed, the local transplant co-ordinator is contacted. He will check to see if the potential donor has a card or is registered on the NHS organ donor register. I shall respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) about the register in a moment.
If the deceased has made his or her wishes clear, the transplant co-ordinator can approach the family to discuss donation with confidence. Objection is almost unknown if families are aware that their loved ones wanted to donate. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) drew attention to the fact that he did not have his organ transplant card with him. We always point out how important it is that people who are willing to donate their organs communicate that to their families, so that even the physical absence of an organ donation card will not stand in the way of organ removal and transplantation.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is a practical problem. A lot of people do not have their donor cards with them for one reason or another—their wallets might have been stolen, or they might have lost them. Will the Minister consider establishing a better link between those who carry organ donor cards and the placing of names on the national organ donor register? That way, it would be possible in a matter of seconds, even if people did not have their cards with them, to establish that they were willing to donate their organs.
Mr. Hutton: I hope that that would be the case in most circumstances, but I shall certainly consider that point. However, if organ donors have made no record of their wishes and their families have not discussed the issue, the transplant co-ordinator's task is much harder. Overall, three of every four families generously and courageously agree to donation.
Whether there is a formal record of the wishes or not, the transplant co-ordinator will talk to families and ensure that they have no objection. There is no question of a transplant taking place against the wishes of the family. The history of the donor will also be checked to confirm that there are no medical or social contraindications to donation.
If permission is obtained, the transplant co-ordinator will contact the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority. It maintains the national transplant database, which contains details of all potential organ
20WH
transplants and recipients in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. A search of the database is made to find the most suitable patients. Once the patients and their locations are identified, the doctors at those transplant units are alerted and asked to confirm acceptance of the organ. As they do so, the preparation of their patients for the transplant operation begins.
A team of specialist surgeons is called to the donor's hospital to carry out the surgery to remove and preserve the organs for transport to the transplant unit. If necessary, special transport arrangements will be made to ensure that no time is lost. The process of recovery and new life can then begin for the patient. Meanwhile, once the first immediate pain of bereavement has passed, many donor families find profound comfort in the thought that their relatives' organs have enabled others to live.
Several hon. Members referred to the shortage of organs suitable for transplant. So far this year, 2,517 people have received life-saving operations. My figures are accurate up to 10 December, which was Friday of last week. Organs from 900 donors give a new lease of life to more than 3,000 people every year in the United Kingdom, and a further 3,000 people have their sight restored. Transplants are now so successful that many more patients can be considered for such treatment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said. More people are being added to the waiting list each week, faster than organs become available.
Currently, 6,730 people are on the waiting list for transplantation in the United Kingdom. The vast majority of them are waiting for kidney transplants, and will have a much-reduced quality of life on dialysis while they are waiting. For those waiting for hearts or livers, there is of course no alternative to transplantation. As several hon. Members have rightly said, the success of other policies has exacerbated the problem of availability of organs for donation. The main source of organs suitable for donation is people who have died from sudden brain injury, such as that which can be caused by a stroke or a road traffic accident. Partly as a result of the legislation to which the hon. Member for Woodspring referred, the United Kingdom now has one of the lowest rates of road traffic deaths in the world. Together with advances in neurosciences, that has resulted in a reduction by about two thirds in deaths from intracranial haemorrhage since 1970. Those developments are significant and are warmly welcomed, but, as hon. Members have recognised, they have implications for the subject of the debate.
It is obviously urgent for many more of us to agree that when we die our organs should be used for transplantation. Some people have argued?we have heard such arguments today?that the shortage of organs means that we should change the basis of organ donation in Britain to an opt-out system, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon strongly believes. Such an approach would mean that, unless people have registered their unwillingness to be donors, their organs could be taken and used. Some people believe that that approach would lead to a vast increase in the number of organs available for transplantation, but the Government do not believe that that is the case.

21WH
The hon. Member for Woodspring referred to a parliamentary answer. We do not think that there is any clear evidence that, where an opt-out approach has been introduced and rates have risen, it is the sole factor in higher donation rates. Other important factors include different cultural attitudes to the disposal of bodies, greater numbers of intensive care beds, more aggressive procurement policies and road death rates.
Dr. Fox: Can the Minister assist the debate by publishing the data that the Department has considered in relation to differences in other countries, so that all hon. Members might have the benefit of being able to make up their minds on their importance?
Mr. Hutton: We shall certainly share with the hon. Gentleman as much information as we can. As I understand it, his argument is that such information relates simply to the difference between an opt-out and an opt-in system, which can be quantified and measured in the availability of organs. I am trying to tell him and other hon. Members who have advanced similar arguments that the matter is not that simple.
Dr. Harris: First, I have never said that an opt-out system would "vastly increase", to use the Minister's words, the number of available organs. I do not believe that supporters of such an approach have suggested that, and such a suggestion should not be put up just to be shot down. Secondly, supporters of a shift to presumed consent do not offer their support solely on the basis of the organ shortage. I have already referred to the paramountcy of the donor's views and to the need for relatives not to have to second-guess those. Thirdly, the European transplantation forum considered the evidence, and suggested that an opt-out system, such as that used in Belgium, could well be a factor in increased availability of organs. That change involved a control group of hospitals that did not shift to the new system and shared everything else in common with those in the rest of the country, but did not benefit from an increase in the supply of organs.
Mr. Hutton: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's views on the subject. He will know, however, that only the BMA—which is not an unimportant source of opinion—has supported his suggestion of an opt-out scheme. As I understand it, the professional opinion of most other relevant bodies is either divided or hostile to the notion. For example, I am advised that the United Kingdom Transplant Co-ordinators Association would not accept any version of the opt-out approach that did not include a requirement to gain family agreement. During the debate and, I think, in the summer, it has appeared that the hon. Gentleman does not support that suggestion. As I understand it, he would support the removal of an organ notwithstanding whether the family involved wished to withdraw consent.
Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the chance to clarify my views. As I said at the BMA conference, when relatives strongly object to organ removal, despite a donor having indicated that he or she wished to donate by not opting out when the
22WH
opportunity arose, the relatives' wishes should be respected. I believe that the majority of people operating within the BMA and promulgating its policy recognise that practical point. It is fair to say that professional opinion is split. However, the trend among bodies such as the National Kidney Federation, which has adopted a policy of considering presumed consent after an education period, is towards considering the option.
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point, and I am sorry if I misrepresented his argument. I have listened closely to his remarks, however, and I understood him to be suggesting that an organ may be removed and made available for transplantation notwithstanding the strong views of family or relatives. The hon. Gentleman referred to Austria and Belgium, which are often cited as examples of countries with opt-out systems and higher donation rates than our own. However, those countries have double the road accident rates that we have. Organs are suitable for transplant only if the donor patient died as a result of sudden brain injury and was receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit when death occurred. Many such deaths occur as a result of road accidents.
The concerns expressed today are evidence that public confidence in the system in place is crucial. We know that there is public support for the current system of donation, in which potential donors opt in, rather than for an opt-out or presumed consent approach. For example, a Department of Health survey commissioned in July found that 50 per cent. of people were in favour of the current system and that only 28 per cent. were in favour of an opt-out system. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the terms of the survey, as we have already discussed these matters. It established that there is a strong preference for the current system.
The sensitivity of the organ donor programme to adverse publicity, to which the hon. Member for Woodspring rightly referred, has been illustrated by events in France, which has opt-out legislation. There was a strong public reaction when a couple discovered that their son's eyes had been removed against their wishes. That is exactly the scenario to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The incident received widespread coverage in the French media, and led to a 20 per cent. drop in organ donation and to a 30 per cent. drop in corneal donation. It took three to four years for the donation rate to recover. Such considerations are important, and we must keep them under review. To reassure the public, French law was amended to require relatives to be approached when the donor's wishes are not clear.
Although opt-out implies that organs should be taken unless the dead person is known to have objected to donation, doctors do not in practice assert their right to take organs against the wishes of the grieving family. Apart from sensitivity to families' distress, there are also practical difficulties, such as the need to consult the family in case there was something in a potential donor's health or life style that would make him or her unsuitable for donation.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend at least see Lord Winston, who last night presented a powerful case on therapeutic cloning? Many hon. Members are interested in these matters.
Mr. Hutton: I shall certainly do so. The best person to see Lord Winston may be my noble Friend Lord Hunt, the Under-Secretary of State with specific responsibilities in the Department for such matters.
I am not sure whether I shall be able to respond in the limited time remaining to all of the points made. I shall try to do so as quickly as possible. The hon. Member for Woodspring referred to a number of proposals that he had in mind for improving the system. We shall of course consider any of his proposals. We keep an open mind about these matters, and we are keen to find any way of improving the existing system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow asked what consideration we are giving to the use of therapeutic cloning. As he said, the issues are complex and involve morality, ethics and law. The Department keeps them under vigorous consideration through various advisory groups, including the gene therapy advisory committee and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
The hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned elective ventilation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Sport Funding
11.30 am
Mr. Harry Cohen: I have great pleasure in introducing this Adjournment debate—my first in Westminster Hall—on equal funding for men and women in sport. The emphasis of the debate is on boosting the position of women in sport. In this country, women in sport get a raw deal from the private sector in terms of sponsorship, pay and prize money, as well as from individuals, sports associations and television. Women also get a raw deal from the state through virtually all its agencies: central and local government, sports councils, centres of excellence and lottery funds. They certainly get a raw deal overall. In fact, the situation is so bad that many women are discouraged from pursuing their sport, even though they clearly have talent.
The situation in the United States is very different, at least with regard to federal funding. The Education Amendment Acts of 1972 included a provision known as Title IX. Apart from some exemptions—for example, for colleges controlled by religious organisations or the military—Title IX forbids any education programme that receives federal funds from discriminating on the basis of sex. It provides that federal aid to any programme or institution that refuses to comply may be terminated. Title IX ensures equal funding and equal opportunities for athletics programmes in US schools and universities, regardless of sex. That policy is not only fairer but has been rewarded with success.
In July, the United States women's football team won the women's world cup in sell-out stadiums. About 90,000 people saw the final at the Rose Bowl and another 40 million people watched it on television. My American friends, mostly men, were enormously excited at the achievement of their team. One said to me, "You should have a debate on Title IX in Parliament."
The International Herald Tribune of 3 July attributed the success of their team to Title IX and said:
"The women on the soccer team are products of competitive college sports programmes that did not exist before the law. Girls can now dream of a professional career in athletics, something that seemed unattainable even five years ago."
Although the article acknowledged that equality in sport has a long way to go, it said that it
"holds the promise of what women in America can achieve in sports."
About 7.5 million girls now play soccer in the US, compared with 50,000 in Germany, which is the best figure that Europe can provide. The defender Lorrie Fair said:
"Title IX has given girls something to shoot for. It sent the message that if you work hard you have the chance to play your sport at a high level and get a college education. It lets girls know there are opportunities out there for them."
Before the law in 1972, one girl participated in school and college sport for every 27 boys; now the figure is one to three. Before Title IX, only one in 27 women in high school played sport. That number has risen to one in nine. Sports scholarships are now more readily available to young women. On 28 June, Reuters reported that many of the most recognisable sports stars in the United States are now women: Sheryl Swoopes of the basketball team the Houston Comets; the tennis

25WH
professionals, Venus and Serena Williams; and Juli Inkster, who won the Ladies Professional Golf Association championships. It said:
"Assured, aggressive and media-friendly, they and the US women's soccer team are a far cry from the earliest American female athletes, who were relegated to such ladylike sports as badminton and archery, which could be played in long dresses."
The publisher Suzanne Grimes said:
"There is now a whole generation for which sport has become a natural part of their lives."
Charlotte Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in one sport, the very ladylike sport of chess, less than 4 per cent. of the annual UK grant of £50,000—itself a small amount—goes to the women's game? Is that not appalling, in view of the real progress being made by women and girls in that sport? For example, Harriet Hunt, the women's top board at the recent European team championships in Georgia was the first UK player to capture a board one gold, defeating strong women grand masters from Ukraine and Hungary. That success is replicated around the country. In my constituency, the Cheddleton and Leek club scored seven victories when seven girls entered the junior congress in Staffordshire.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes her point well. I know that she has campaigned on that issue. The disproportionate funding for women in that game is mirrored in other sports.
What a contrast there is between the United States and Britain. We are increasingly becoming a nation of couch potatoes, and in addition women are discouraged from taking up serious sport. Old sexist attitudes die hard—in fact, they are not dead at all. Buster Mottram is quoted in the Daily Mirror of 8 October. He said:
"Until recently, even heavy doses of Viagra would not have made 90 per cent. of women players attractive to 80-year-old men in lycra shorts."
We know that, in several countries, traditional culture or religion can pose barriers to women in sport. For us, the attitudes are stupid, sexist and deeply old-fashioned. The Independent on 14 July stated:
"But for all the men's complaints, Title IX has brought a sharp increase in girls' participation in sport that contrasts favourably with the decline in Britain, where the squeeze on extra-curricular activities and the sell-off of playing fields have contributed to a precipitate fall in school sport that has disproportionately affected girls."
On 4 July, referring to the women's world cup, the Observer said:
"Unfortunately, for Britain—still hidebound when it comes to popular attitudes to women in sport—we had no part in the finals. England, the highest rated British team, finished last in the qualifying group. Britain is not yet near to catching up Nixon-era America. Only about half of Britain's state schools offer football to girls as well as boys"—
I suspect that that is at varying levels of quality. Kelly Simmons, the FA women's football coach, said:
"It is unfortunately dependent on the school having a PE teacher with an interest to push the sport."
The Observer concluded:
"There is no requirement for British schools to offer equal sports opportunities to both sexes. Britain is doomed to watch this revolution from the substitutes' bench of history."
26WH
It is a great struggle for women competitors to train and compete properly. The Daily Mirror of 29 September referred to Sarah Winckless, the 25-year-old rower who hopes to take part in next year's Olympics. She relies on national lottery funding, sponsorship from Virgin and part-time work to stay afloat while she trains. Of course, the equipment she needs is very expensive. She cannot even afford to start a pension because she does not earn enough.
In January, The Daily Telegraph reported a funding crisis in women's hockey. The women's hockey team had to cancel a tour of Australia in the build-up to the Olympics, and the appointment of a national coordinator was put on hold. Junior development programmes were completely dispensed with, and the UK Sports Council cut much of its world-class performance plan for hockey. One person said that lottery funding is okay for individuals, but not for teams, such as hockey teams. I do not know if the situation has changed since January, and whether the players did in fact go on tour, but it was certainly a great disruption to their effort in preparing for world-class standard.
Women's football in this country does not meet international standards. Women footballers are paid next to nothing and given little access to top-class facilities. Lilleshall, the national footballing centre, makes no provision for girls while thousands of pounds are spent on each boy. Our best women footballers have to seek scholarships in the US. There is a slow increase in the linking of local women's teams with men's league clubs. That is a good thing, but it often amounts to little more than just providing them with the kit. Sometimes that is unhelpful because the clubs are tied to a single sponsor and the women's teams are precluded from finding their own funding.
The Football Association lives up to its initials as far as women's soccer is concerned. After the first world war, larger crowds attended women's soccer matches than men's, so the FA banned those games. It is still not interested in women's soccer. How about equal access to and use of the new Wembley stadium?
There is a problem in our schools. The Scotsman on 3 February reported that girls are poorly served by mixed physical education classes and PE instructors are often insensitive to equal opportunities because they mark girls down. It referred to the trend of making PE a boys-only option. That is outrageous. Television, including the BBC, fails properly to cover and promote women's sport. When the television cameras are on, they are pointed at male athletes. Only 5 per cent. of sports coverage is devoted to female athletes.
There are serious health and safety implications in our approach to women's sport. A report this week shows that the United Kingdom tops the heart disease league in Europe, but there is a trend, of which Princess Diana was a good role model, of women pursuing health and fitness in the gymnasium and through sport beyond their teenage years—for instance, hundreds of women compete in the London marathon. Women want to keep fit and, if they have the opportunity to do so, their sons and perhaps even their husbands will follow them. That will improve health and sport in general.
I want to express my own brand of chauvinism, which is British chauvinism. I want us to win more prizes and

27WH
medals, but we are underperforming. Boosting women's sport would increase our medal count and, in the long term, improve our men's performances.
What is to be done? I urge the Minister to prepare a comprehensive programme, with equal opportunities at its core, involving all official sports bodies. Schools and PE instructors must be included. We should open gyms, sports centres, playing fields and swimming pools so that women have equal access at an affordable price. The lottery should be forbidden to discriminate against women's sport; in fact, it should be required to boost it. No state money should be given to the official sports associations unless they have realistic women's sport development programmes. Lilleshall and the centres of excellence should operate effectively on behalf of women athletes. We should also encourage television, newspapers and advertising agencies to elevate the profile of sportswomen so that, as role models, they get young girls into sport.
Let us have a Title IX to get on track to winning. Earlier this year, President Clinton said:
"This is about more than sports. This is about the fundamental right of every human being to dream and work and strive and the obligation never to quit, never to give in, never to be limited, never to be defined. And our obligation to see that all those who come behind us have that right to jump and soar in athletics, in music, in every endeavour".
11.45 am
The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing the debate. This important issue has not been discussed specifically in the House for a long time and the debate is overdue. I also welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). It is good to see her here.
Many women believe that there is an injustice in the way in which funding for sport is distributed. More women than ever find that regular physical exercise improves health, self-confidence and well-being. There has been huge growth recently in women's team sports, especially football and rugby, which are among the fastest growing sports. The Government's sport for all policy is designed to ensure that that trend continues.
As more women recognise the benefits of sport, it is important that they and their sports are able to access funding. However, it is vital that funding is not given for the sake of it as an artificial way of making up for past imbalances. As with all funding, we must ensure that it is properly targeted. Money that is given to women's sport must help to identify sporting potential and attract more women and girls into sport.
I met a large number of governing bodies of all sports over the past few months including those that represent women's sports, such as rugby union, football, cricket, netball and hockey. I also met the Womens Sports Foundation. We explored how to give women's sport a higher profile and I heard important views on the recent equal opportunities report. Those organisations were keen to raise many of the issues that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead. They told me about the difficulties that women's sport
28WH
and minority sports, which might be played by men, have in obtaining sponsorship. They highlighted the problem of the link between sponsorship and media coverage. There is no doubt what difference it makes for women's sport to get coverage on terrestrial or satellite television. The women's netball team's recent bronze-medal win in the world championship in New Zealand was shown on the BBC's terrestrial programme "Grandstand" on Sunday afternoon. It had a huge impact on people who had not seen netball since their school days. It was clear how much the sport had changed; it is now faster and more professional. When I watched the team play, the game was very different from my days as captain of the school netball team.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport works closely with the sports councils and Departments across Whitehall, including the women's unit in the Cabinet Office, to consider what more can be done to use sport to help women in other aspects of their lives. I am keen that sport, be it men's or women's, is not an add-on or sideshow, but a central part of Government policy, because it can deliver in many ways. For example, it has an impact on social exclusion and helps to reduce crime and drug dependency among young people.
Recent research by the Womens Sports Foundation in America shows a clear link between sport and teenage pregnancy. Young teenagers are much less likely to become pregnant if they are involved in active sport and recreation. They have greater self-esteem and self-confidence. I want us to do more work on that so that we prove it through research—although it is common sense to me—and women's sport gets the funding that it deserves.
The subject of our debate is equal funding for men's and women's sports. Funding is an important part of ensuring that women are able to participate in sport and physical activities at both the grass roots and elite levels, but we must ensure that we remove all the barriers that discourage women from participating. We must further ensure that the funding is used wisely to the benefit of everyone.
More than £6 million of Exchequer funding goes to sports governing bodies. As one of the conditions of that funding, all governing bodies are required to have proposals for the development of women's sport. That did not happen in the past, but it is now making a difference to each governing body. That money also funds activities that are specifically designed to encourage more women and girls into sport. Moreover, all sports bodies are required to demonstrate how women's sport will be encouraged as part of any application to the lottery sports fund. Lottery funding requirements mean that all facilities should operate non-discriminatory access policies and their marketing policies and programmes of use should ensure inclusion.
Organisations that cannot prove that they are doing that have already been refused funding. It is making a real difference to sports clubs' approach towards women. They may not be changing for the right reason, but they are having to change and to think through how funding is to be spent. The new rules have helped to raise the issue of discriminatory practice in club membership. Perhaps more than anything, they are helping to increase women's participation rates, including in some of the sports that have traditionally been seen as male dominated.

29WH
The world-class performance programme is another lottery-funded initiative. Of the 1,351 athletes—in the widest sense—currently supported by it, 596 are women, which means that they receive almost 45 per cent. of the total funding of £84 million. That is a real improvement and shows that women are reaching the higher levels in terms of funding. It does not solve the problem of how to get more women to come through, but when they have come through and their talent has been identified, they are receiving their share of world-class performance funding. As well as going to individuals, that money has gone to team events such as women's rugby and women's cricket.
The subject of equal prize money frequently comes up, especially in relation to Wimbledon. Everyone would accept that the contribution that sportswomen make to sporting competitions is just as good as that of men—if not better in many cases. The organisers and governing bodies have the final say on how much money people will be paid, but the subject is continually reviewed.
Although there is some good news, I want to improve the rate of women's participation in sports generally. Clearly, if we get things right at the base and ensure that more women and young girls come in, our strength in sports will be greater and our importance to sponsors and the media will increase. Together with colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment, I am studying recent research into what turns young girls off physical education and school sport.
Changes in the national curriculum for physical education will allow more flexibility at key stage 4, which I hope will help to ensure that young girls stay involved in some kind of sport and recreation. We must capture their interest and remember that many young girls in their early teens—a difficult age—are concerned with how they look and do not want to mess up their hair. They are concerned with their image and self-esteem, and the issue must be handled carefully; that is why a good physical education teacher can make all the difference. We are working with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that we get things right in schools for girls and that physical education teachers are well trained and able to cope with the problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead referred.
The issue of Title IX was prominent in my hon. Friend's speech. It governs the overall equity of treatment and opportunity in educational establishments. Clearly, it has been working in the United States, although there are different views on how successful it has been. Much evidence suggests that it has been successful in terms of participation, but some argue that it can hold back women's participation in some high-profile sports. It is also extremely difficult to enforce because, even on the rare occasions when schools and colleges have been taken to court, the penalty for non-compliance has hardly ever been dished out.
30WH
As my hon. Friend will know, sports structures in the United Kingdom are very different from those in America. In the United States, the highly commercialised sporting college concept is dominant, while the sports governing bodies are dominant here. It is not at all clear that the United Kingdom governing bodies as presently constituted would be able to meet the legal Title IX requirements for equal opportunities between men and women, especially without a greater commercial impetus. The Women's Netball Association pointed out that, if Title IX applied here, the Sports Council might have to withdraw funding from the English women's netball team if it could not demonstrate that it was providing equally for boys as well as girls. There are also problems in other sports.
I would not like anyone to think that all the women's sports governing bodies are keen to go down the Title IX route, because they are not. They are, however, keen to ensure that support continues to flow to women's sport from the national lottery. They also want to ensure a higher profile for debates about how we project women's sport, how we win more sponsorship and how we ensure that the media see women as sportswomen and not as women first, which is the angle that the newspapers take at the moment. We must work together to build on the magnficient achievements of some of our famous sportswomen. My hon. Friend referred to many in America, but let us not forget our role models: Mary Peters, Virginia Wade, Tessa Sanderson, Sally Gunnell and Tanni Grey are all excellent athletes, and more are coming on. I hope that we will achieve more successes at next year's Olympic games.
There are definitely some good news stories, but my hon. Friend is right to draw this issue to our attention. We must be careful that we do not assume that everything will automatically be all right if we carry on as we are. We must continually examine what we are doing and measure results to ensure that we give youngsters in particular the opportunities to get into sport. We have a solid foundation on which to build from the way in which the lottery has worked and how its equity principles have affected the thinking of sports governing bodies. Even the governing bodies that once seemed to take no interest in women's sport are now having to change.
We are determined to get more women to participate in sport at all levels. We must continue to produce athletes who will be the best in the world so that, as my hon. Friend said, they will win medals for this country and make us proud of our achievements—nothing makes us feel better than doing well at sport. I want to ensure that our country's success is measured not only in mainstream team sports such as cricket, rugby and football; there are many other good things going on in sport and in women's sport, and we must ensure that those achievements are trumpeted. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this debate. I shall take back to my Department all the points that he raised.
12 noon
Sitting suspended.

NHS Scientists
12.1 pm
On resuming—
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am delighted to have an opportunity to discuss scientists in the national health service. This is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in Westminster Hall.
The Minister is aleady well aware of the issue. There has been a succession of parliamentary questions from other hon. Members and me throughout the year and earlier in the year the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, which represents many of the members of staff involved, organised a big lobby. He is currently dealing directly with pay and conditions through negotiations, and is discussing his paper "Agenda for Change", which addresses many of the issues.
I am not here as a spokesman for the union although, in this case, the issues that it raises are valid. I have two reasons for bringing the matter to debate. First, as often happens, I was approached by a constituent?a laboratory scientist in the NHS who works at Guy's and St. Thomas' hospital. He wanted to alert me to problems. I was taken on a guided tour of the laboratories, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who has a personal and professional interest in the matter. I was struck by the combination of the dedication of the staff and their unhappiness, sometimes amounting to bitterness, about the extent to which they had been overlooked in successive pay negotiation rounds. Frankly, they were in a parlous economic position.
Secondly, I represent a constituency with an exceptionally high number of professional scientists. It has two major physics and chemistry laboratories and many related scientific commercial enterprises. I therefore have an interest in promoting in Parliament science and the people who work in it. If one group of professional scientists is seriously undervalued, it sends the signal to all scientists that their qualifications and training are not valued.
The specific issue that I wish to raise is the problem—many would call it the scandal—of low pay among what are now called biomedical scientists. They are scientists at BSc (Hons.) level who enter the NHS and can train for up to five years to achieve a qualification that, as the Minister explained to me in a written answer yesterday, is not enshrined in law and is not fully portable. They serve a long apprenticeship on low pay to work within that cadre of professions.
For some years, the headline story has been of people at the bottom of the scale—trainees, laboratory technicians and trainee scientific officers—being hired on wages of approximately £year. That is only a little more than the minimum wage, and those of them with dependants would certainly qualify for family credit. The Minister will, no doubt, say that his offer to professionals, which he confirmed in a written answer yesterday, will take care of their problem. None the less, assuming that the pay offer is accepted, many young scientific officers will join the profession on about £9,500 or £10,000 a year. That is the status of the profession into which many of those people are moving.
32WH
Why is that a problem? First, many young professionals are emerging from university in near poverty. Unlike other workers, many have substantial debts—they have obtained student loans and have borrowed in lieu of student grants. They then have to enter a long and difficult apprenticeship on exceptionally low pay. Secondly, large differentials have opened up within the NHS. I welcome the advances in nurses' pay as much as anyone else—they are well deserved, long overdue and almost certainly inadequate. A grade D nurse, who is roughly comparable to those professionals in terms of educational qualifications and age, is probably joining the NHS on approximately £14,500. I do not begrudge the nurses anything that has been given to them, but they attract emotional and political support that backroom laboratory workers do not enjoy. That has contributed to the big disparity.
Invidious contrasts can be made with pay outside the NHS. People concerned with that group of workers and I have done some checking. The going rate for menial jobs in supermarkets, certainly in south-west suburban London, is probably between £9,500 and £10,000—roughly the same as that for scientists with degrees and student debts. The contrast is painful.
The other contrast is with people in the private sector. Again, I rely on anecdote, but I gather that laboratory technicians are paid about £16,000 or £16,500 by Glaxo Wellcome—one of the leading groups employing staff on roughly comparable grades to the NHS—whereas in the NHS they would be paid £10,000.
The problem is not just that that is invidious but that hospitals are increasingly contracting out scientific work. My local district general hospital, West Middlesex University hospital, now has a contract with Glaxo Wellcome for much of that work. I am troubled not only by the unfairness but by the economics. Why is the NHS having to contract out work of such quality and importance to the private sector, in which pay is much higher? One assumes that the NHS is not making savings and that it is having to do so because it cannot attract enough staff of the right quality. The same is true of agency nursing. The position of nurses is being undermined within the NHS, and the practice is extremely uneconomic: I suspect that the same is happening with scientists.
Why is there a wider problem? I have discussed the matter with people in the profession. Recruitment and retention are beginning to be seriously affected. The Government's figures, published in September, are helpful. They show that about 50 per cent of trusts have recruitment difficulties and 25 per cent have retention difficulties with scientific workers. The situation is not as extreme as it is with nurses, but it is much worse than with other groups of NHS workers and is becoming a big problem. The problem is especially acute in cytology—cancer detection. About a third of those scientists in the NHS are due to retire soon because of the age structure of their group. There is no sign that the NHS will be able to recruit on the scale required. That will affect the safety and security of cancer screenings and delay women waiting to receive test results. There is a particularly serious recruitment problem in that area. I realise that the Minister's offer acknowledged the problem, as there is a differentially favourable offer to cytology scientists. None the less, there is a major problem.

33WH
The issue of recruitment and retention reveals a wider problem: the integrity of the NHS as a whole. Any NHS hospital must operate as a team, with people in the front line and in the back room. Anything that weakens a key part weakens the whole system and I emphasise the importance of that group of professionals, the NHS scientists, in that context. The key area is cancer screening, as I said a few moments ago. We know from publicity about the failures in cancer screening that disasters can result, but that is not all. In the laboratory that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park visited, some of the key testing related to tuberculosis, which is now on a rapid growth curve, as the Minister explained to the press a few days ago. Early and accurate detection is critical in getting on top of a potential epidemic.
The laboratory also carried out tests for MRSA—methicillin-resistant streptococcus aureus—the effects of which are not fully understood in the United Kingdom, but which is reaching epidemic proportions, with enormous consequences for patients and for the functioning of hospitals because patients suffering from MRSA need to be isolated.
The problems arose from a political decision taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), when he was the Secretary of State for Health, to drop that group of workers from the pay review body. Why that decision was taken is shrouded in the mists of history, but it has had cumulatively disastrous consequences. As a result of successive rounds of settlements outside the pay review body structure, that group of workers has fallen roughly 30 per cent. behind. I know that the Minister is trying to tackle it now, but there is an enormous catch-up problem as a result of that decision.
I return to what I think the Government are trying to do to tackle the problem and the extent to which they appear to be succeeding or failing. The Minister told me yesterday in a written answer that they are making a serious attempt to get to grips with the shocking headline figures at the bottom of the scale by effectively removing the two bottom rungs. However, the laboratory staff told me that only one of the 40 employees there would benefit. It may be an isolated extreme, but the unhappiness in the laboratory, which I am sure is replicated elsewhere, is happening because the more experienced scientists and those in the middle of the scale will get an increase, if the offer is accepted, of about 3 per cent. That is lower than this year's increase for the public sector as a whole and lower than for those on average earnings. One anomaly has, rightly, been tackled, but the consequences are that, for most people in the profession, the underlying inequity has not been dealt with.
The Minister has addressed the issue of London weighting, which is welcome, because the problems of retention and recruitment are exceptionally severe in London. There will be a 13 per cent. increase in London weighting; applying the arithmetic to the current figures means that that is worth about £260 a year. That is welcome, but given the magnitude of the problem, it has not been tackled in a substantial way.
The key issue for the future—the real meat of the problem—is that the Minister has agreed that in future those categories should be brought within the pay review body structure, which is a welcome and positive
34WH
step forward. The sting in the tail, however—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—is that he is suggesting that that should not happen until April 2001. People in the profession fear that by the time a review has taken place a year will have elapsed and by the time that negotiations have taken place on the basis of that review, another year will have passed. Therefore, it may be three or four years before the anomalies have been rectified; meanwhile, they are growing because the groups are not within the proper structure. Although I welcome the Minister's proposal, I ask him why it is not possible to bring these workers within the pay review body structure now, to start the process of examining their predicament. There is no overwhelming reason why that should not be done.
I recognise, as an Opposition Member must, that all this has to be paid for. I am not being flippant about that; I know that the priority is to improve services and it is right that that should be done. However, there is a link between improved services and the pay and conditions of NHS staff. If pay and conditions are not right there is inadequate and poor-quality recruitment, with mistakes and delays. Thus, ultimately, the cost to the public purse will be greater than if the upfront payment were made. The economics are not totally unambiguous.
As I said earlier, science is an important industry in my constituency and it is important, whether or not we are talking about the NHS, that scientists are recognised and rewarded appropriately and that the right signal is sent to people who are now aged 13, 14 and 15 and making choices about A-levels and careers. The present position is that there is a massive disincentive to go into science and a temptation to go for easier options. I hope that the bigger picture is not lost sight of within the minutiae of negotiation.
12.16 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate. He has chosen to discuss the pay and conditions of NHS scientists. They are a small group of about 14,000 people within the health service, but they are, none the less, an important group of staff, who make a crucial contribution to patient care through their work in diagnostic techniques and treatment.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he made his case and for acknowledging some of the measures that the Government have already taken on the matter. I shall develop my remarks in the context of the wider changes in the pay system in the NHS to which he referred.
It is important to acknowledge that both clinical and biomedial scientists work in the NHS on a range of activities that use scientific principles to determine the extent, cause and treatment of a wide variety of patient conditions. They have a crucial part to play in the treatment of people with life-threatening conditions, such as cancer and coronary heart disease—two areas that we have established as top priorities for the Government. We are introducing a national service framework for a 10-year modernisation programme for heart disease, mental health and diabetes, all of which require a skilled input from a well-trained scientific work force if diagnosis and treatment are to be effective.

35WH
For the first time since the NHS was founded, the approach to national service frameworks will give us the opportunity to marry up service, resource and staff planning. We want to ensure that those three processes come together. We will use the national service frameworks and our new work force review as the means of doing so. The work force review is wide-ranging; it will cover scientists and technical support staff and other groups.
As the hon. Gentleman said, many scientists are involved in clinical-based research on new diagnostic techniques and treatments. All have a first degree in science, and often further training, some to masters or doctorate level. There are many distinct specialties such as medical physics, clinical chemistry, microbiology, histopathology and haematology. Those scientists are an important part of the health care team; they carry out tests on samples such as tissues and body fluids from patients to help doctors to diagnose disease and to monitor patients' progress, so that nursing care and drug and other therapies can be tailored to match.
As the hon. Gentleman said, current pay for clinical scientists ranges from £13,000 to £54,000 and for biomedical scientists from £7,400 to £32,000. As he acknowledges, this year's pay offer addresses low pay at the bottom end of the biomedical scientists' pay scale by increasing it to £9,400, a rise of 26 per cent. All scientists have been offered at least 3 per cent., significantly more than inflation, with some offered up to 7 per cent. To tackle special recruitment problems. Some trainees have been offered up to 26 per cent. by restructuring their pay scale.
In addition, London weighting has been increased by 13.5 per cent. to restore it to 1995 values. Given the current circumstances, that is a fair offer. We were right, this year, to target the funds at areas with a demonstrably greater need to address recruitment and retention problems that would have damaged patient care. That is a bigger problem with some staff groups than others.
Across the board, scientists are in a relatively healthy position in comparison with other disciplines—hard-tofill vacancies lasting over three months account for a vacancy rate of only 1.1 per cent. across the discipline as a whole. However, there is a difficulty in recruiting staff at the bottom end of the biomedical scientist scale. Having recognised that, we have offered larger increases to staff at the end of the profession.
I accept that those figures mask some local variations. London finds recruitment and retention more difficult than other parts of the country. However, local employers already have some flexibility within the national Whitley system to offer pay rates that are attractive enough to get staff with the skills that they need. For example, Whitley contains a provision to offer local pay supplements of up to 30 per cent. in the London area, specifically to address recruitment and retention issues where management consider that proven problems could be redressed by pay enhancement. That and similar action is being taken by London NHS employees, including those at Kingston hospital, in which the hon. Member for Twickenham will have an interest.
36WH
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged the wider changes that we are trying to bring about. We know that the current pay system is out of date and in need of review. That is why, on 15 February, we published "Agenda for Change", which sets out detailed proposals for modernising the way in which the NHS rewards its staff. We want to develop a new pay system based on efficiency, fairness, flexibility and partnership. That system must be able to offer all staff better career progression and fairer rewards for taking on extended roles, widening their skills and working in teams; modern conditions of service; and a fair basis for pay increases in the security of a national pay system.
We intend to do that in tandem with considering work force issues from the point of view of the skills that are needed to deliver modern, fast and convenient services to patients. That is long overdue. On the ground, practice is changing. The traditional hard-and-fast demarcations between clinical professions are giving way to more fluid and flexible team working. Now is the right time to be considering the skills that the NHS of the future will need. It is time to examine the issues in a new way?across professions, sectors and services. All clinical groups in the NHS believe that to be necessary in order to ensure that patients get the timely and appropriate care that they need.
As we try to make joined-up decisions on work force requirements, we will have to tackle some of the underlying barriers to change in the current system of pay and conditions of service in the NHS. In too many areas, employment practices in the NHS bear the stamp of 1948 rather than 1999. The NHS needs to become a 21st-century employer. It also needs to become a better employer, not least by offering greater flexibility in the way in which staff are employed. The current pay structure groups staff in ways that are increasingly less relevant to the way in which a modern health service works. Staff are defined by a combination of their titles, their pay and how they are trained, rather than by what they do for patients. Existing conditions of service, which often include a range of arcane allowances built up over many years, too often distort working patterns and inhibit the development of the around-the-clock, flexible services that patients need. Modernising the pay system is therefore one of our key priorities. It will help to deliver the new patient-centred services that both the Government and NHS staff want to see.
The discussions that have taken place so far on our pay proposals have been positive and constructive. A national system of job evaluation will allow creative approaches to job design, to match exactly the redesigned care processes that are so vital to patients.
In talking about the membership of the pay review body, the hon. Gentleman anticipated decisions and conclusions that have not yet been reached. We recognise that there are groups of highly qualified health professional who, for various reasons, are outside the pay review body's remit. That forms part of the talks that are underway with staff and representatives on the basis of "Agenda for Change". Those talks will include discussions about whether any new groups should be covered by the pay review body, but it is not intended that there should be any change to the fundamentally professional character of its coverage. It would be wrong of me to comment at this stage on the proposals that are being made for specific staff groups. However,

37WH
I believe that pay modernisation will benefit all NHS staff, whether or not they are covered by a review body. The talks are part of a linked package of discussions and negotiations in which we are working constructively, and with a great deal of common purpose, with all those on the staff side in the NHS.
This is an opportunity to change the pay system for the better, so that staff can be fairly awarded for the work that they do rather than the titles that they hold. It will give us the flexibility to design jobs within the security of a national pay system, giving all staff better career progression and modern terms and conditions and, crucially, allowing managers and staff to deliver the quality of services that everyone wants.
I confirm that, in the course of the constructive discussions that are taking place with the trade unions and the staff side, the MSF—which represents the groups of staff that we have been discussing—is playing a major part in ensuring that the views and aspirations of scientists in the NHS are being played into those discussions. We are working towards radical changes in the NHS, and the necessary changes cannot all take place overnight. If our negotiations are successful, I hope that we will have a fully agreed package by next summer, with implementation starting the following spring.
A modern NHS should mean fair but affordable pay for staff alongside improved modern work practices. That is why our proposals for reform are a key part of the modernisation agenda for the NHS. We want to improve recruitment and retention, through fair rewards and better career progression; improve productivity, through more flexible job design and patterns of working; and improve quality of care, through rewarding the acquisition of better skills rather than applying automatic increments.
I recognise that a substantial portion of what I have said has concerned NHS staff in general rather than scientists in the NHS in particular. However, I am convinced that the correct context in which we should
38WH
discuss the future pattern of rewards and career progression in the NHS for that group of staff is within those wider changes. We must address the needs of the NHS work force as a whole and those of the NHS as a whole.
I also recognise that, although pay and conditions are important, they are not all that we need to offer to staff, particularly highly qualified staff, to work in the NHS. Alongside our work on the pay system, therefore, is a substantial programme of work to improve the working conditions and environment of NHS staff. The new human resources framework that we have launched requires employers to address other key issues—for example, equality, staff involvement, personal development and the development of personal development plans, good employment practices and healthy workplaces. These will all add to the quality and attractiveness of working life in the NHS.
Many staff are concerned about striking the right balance between work and private life; many have responsibilities to care for dependent relatives. Flexible working arrangements that enable them to discharge those responsibilities and continue with their careers must be developed and encouraged.
We must also ensure that staff have access to reasonable career progression. That is central to the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. Career pathways must be developed and support must be given for staff to gain relevant skills. That is particularly true in the case of scientific disciplines, where advances in knowledge and technology continually open up new fields of specialisation and create demand for new services. We must grasp that opportunity in order to boost the work force that we want for the 21st century.
To get the work force that is required, we have to get the right calibre of staff into employment and then ensure that they can be retained. Our "Working Together" programme concentrates on better management and better human resources for the entire work force, and that includes scientists and technicians.

Alternative Fuels
12.30 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), coined a phrase some time ago: "joined-up thinking". This debate takes place at an opportune time. First, it is on the topic of the day—transport. Secondly, it is about joined-up thinking and its relationship to the environment.
The Government's transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", which was published in July 1998, states:
"We will continue to encourage the use of more environentally friendly fuels".
I should declare an interest at this point. Six weeks ago, I bought a dual-fuel vehicle, which runs on liquefied petroleum gas and petrol. I have been enjoying its benefits ever since, and I shall expand on that later.
The transport issue presents us with a number of problems: how to get around safely and quickly; how to travel longer distances in less time; how to ensure that we do not further pollute our towns and cities, causing damage to people and buildings; and how to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect on the whole world. I do not pretend to have all the solutions. However, I shall try to offer some helpful suggestions on how to reach those much-desired targets.
A whole host of alternative vehicle fuels, which offer better economy and less environmental impact than petrol, now exist. Petrol is still the most common vehicle fuel, and, despite the removal of lead, it continues to emit many toxic and undesirable gases. However, the advent of the catalytic converter, and its compulsory addition to all cars manufactured after 1993, has had a dramatic effect on the reduction in harmful gases from petrol-driven cars. Ian McAllister, the chairman and chief executive of Ford UK, is fond of saying that the emissions from 64 new Ford Kas produce the same amount of exhaust gas pollutants as one 1977 model Ford Fiesta. An older bus carrying 30 passengers—or customers, as they seem to be called nowadays—produces more pollution than would be produced if those 30 people were all to drive new small petrol-engine cars. The congestion, of course, would be considerably worse. According to Mr. McAllister, it is almost impossible to commit suicide with a modern petrol engine car—it does not produce enough carbon monoxide.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the Government's transport strategy for the next 10 years. He spoke about investment of £on over that period, and said that he hoped that the entire bus fleet would be replaced in that time. I was amused to hear commentators on the radio deriding him for that—they said that the buses would be replaced within 10 years anyway. Clearly, BBC presenters never travel on buses—if they did, they would know that some of our buses are more than 30 years old, and that their ancient diesel engines cause heavy pollution.
Liquefied petroleum gas—LPG—which is also known as propane, is not new. The gas is a by-product of the oil refining process, and is often burned off in the
40WH
flares that come out of oil refineries. More than 4 million vehicles on the world's roads run on the fuel, which produces far lower exhaust pollutants. More than 1 million of those cars are in Italy, where the tax regime has been even more favourable to the gas. In Holland, which is a much smaller country than the UK, there are 400,000 LPG cars on the roads. Fewer than 8,000 such vehicles are driven on Britain's roads.
LPG is a good alternative fuel, although it is by no means the only one available. It reduces the production of nitrous oxide by up to 85 per cent., carbon monoxide by 98 per cent. and hydrocarbons by 81 per cent. Carbon dioxide is also significantly reduced when compared with petrol. Benzene and butadiene are dangerous human carcinogens. LPG produces one thirteenth of the benzene and half the butadiene emissions of petrol.
Having realised the environmental benefits of LPG, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reduced excise duty on the fuel in his last Budget. The typical forecourt cost for LPG is 35p per litre, compared with more than 75p for petrol—it is probably much more in London. It is no wonder that I am delighted with my new Vauxhall Vectra. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be aware, however, nobody is ever satisfied on tax. I appeal to him to reduce further the duty on the fuel from the current rate of 15p per litre to the European Union minimum of 8.3p. That would further stimulate the market for a gas that is readily available now and that most petrol engines can be converted to accommodate.
Although I described LPG as readily available, one of the most frequently asked questions about my dual-fuel car is, "But where can you fill it up?" I am lucky to come from Leeds, which is a city overflowing with LPG filling stations—four, to be precise. That is far better than London, although there is a convenient garage nearby at Victoria coach station. Many Members of Parliament will remember the early days of the fax machine, about 15 years ago, when people asked, "Why should anyone buy a fax machine?" There seemed little point in doing so if there was no one to whom one could send a fax, as—although it seems incredible now—few people possessed a machine.
The author Joseph Heller, who died on Sunday, will be for ever remembered as the author of "Catch-22". I am not sure whether he would have called LPG a catch-22 problem, but one of the barriers to wholesale conversion to LPG is the lack of infrastructure. There are only 200 filling stations nationwide, although many more are planned by Calor Autogas, Shell and BP over the next 12 months. Among the biggest problems facing the development of more LPG stations are the objections of local planning authorities. Petrol storage tanks are kept underground, but LPG storage tanks must be kept on the surface, and local planning authorities have objected on safety or aesthetic grounds.
On 25 September this year, the Financial Times reported that Dean White, clean fuels manager for BP Amoco, said:
"The government on the one hand is encouraging use of cleaner fuel, but local authorities are saying 'not in our backyard'."
The report continued:
"BP Amoco has hoped to install LPG facilities at 70 filling stations this year. So far it has received planning consent for just three. Shell has cut its target for LPG sites from 100 to about 60 by

41WH
the year end …BP has set a target of providing LPG at 300 filling stations within five years. Officials admitted it was unlikely to achieve that target. Shell, similarly, said it was taking longer than expected to win planning consent. It had hoped to launch 200 sites by 2001."
It would greatly assist the planned target of 500 clean refuelling points by 2001, which is the aim of Calor, Shell and BP, if the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would issue a circular to all local planning authorities encouraging them to approve applications within local framework plans. That would be a step towards joined-up government.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor generously funds the Energy Saving Trust and its Powershift programme, which aims to assist in conversion of vehicles to cleaner fuels. He recently announced three-year funding for the programme, but budgets are already under pressure because of the heavy demand for and massive increase in interest in sustainable clean fuels —not only LPG. I shall add to that burden by telling the House that grants of up to 75 per cent. may be paid towards the conversion of petrol-engine cars by approved conversion companies. That normally involves the removal of the spare wheel and the use of that space to accommodate the new fuel tank, which is a small price to pay for the cleanliness of the fuel.
As most conversions cost between £1,500 and £1,800, the cost borne by the individual—assuming a grant from the Energy Saving Trust—would be recouped in a few months. For companies operating fleets, the cost savings alone would justify the relatively small investment, irrespective of the environmental benefits. Ford, Vauxhall and Peugeot currently offer new cars already converted by the manufacturer.
So far, I have talked about LPG, which is also known as propane, but there are other options. Larger vehicles—buses, refuse wagons and lorries—can run on compressed natural gas, which further reduces polluting gas emissions. The one disadvantage is the size and weight of the fuel tank. CNG, which requires a compression of eight atmospheres, must be stored in very heavy fuel tanks that are impractical for cars, but a number of local authorities have converted to CNG and are already feeling the benefits. Perhaps local authority electorates should press councils to make those conversions, especially in heavily built-up areas such as London and Leeds. I invite the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to make provision for this very good bit of joined-up government.
Last January, I chaired a conference at the Royal Armouries in Leeds, on behalf of the Energy Saving Trust, that sought to persuade public bodies to convert to cleaner fuels. At the conference, I had the opportunity to drive an electric car—the Peugeot 105. A fleet of Peugeot 105s has recently been purchased by Birmingham city council. I thought that that car, which produces no emissions, was the answer to the problems. Like most hon. Members, I suspect, I imagined that driving an electric car would be just like driving a milk float, but I was pleasantly surprised. Although it has no gears, it has good acceleration and is totally silent. I wondered whether it was the ideal solution, but there are problems.
First, on a single charge, its range is only about 40 miles. Secondly, in producing the electricity that charges the vehicle's batteries, pollution is created in other places. Thirdly, the batteries use heavy metals that are
42WH
not very environmentally friendly. However, if we were to use electricity generated by wind farms, or sustainable sources such as hydro-electricity, perhaps such vehicles would be cleaner.
The car is also expensive, but the French—inevitably, it is the French—have established a network of recharging points that recharge much more quickly than conventional ones. The electric car has a little further to go before it is a viable long-distance vehicle, but it has a role to play in inner-city areas, where range is not an issue. I aplaud Birmingham for buying a fleet of such cars, and I hope that Leeds quickly follows suit.
So far, I have not made much mention of diesel, which was the great hope for emission reduction. There are many diesel cars and goods vehicles on our roads, and huge advances have been made in diesel design, emissions and power. Diesel engines are far more economical, and the latest common-rail diesel engines are often indistinguishable from petrol engines. One can even buy a diesel BMW. However, cyclists know that diesel-engine buses produce the filthiest exhaust emissions. Although they help to reduce carbon dioxide, such vehicles produce particulates of unburnt fuel, which are the real killers. High levels of PM10s, which are the larger particulates, contribute to congestive heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular problems and asthmatic attacks. It is estimated that PM 10s advance 8,100 deaths a year, so it is clear that a reduction in older, dirty diesels can only benefit the people of this country, as well as health service costs. There are other, smaller particulates—PM25s—that are even more dangerous because they can be absorbed into the bloodstream more directly. A reduction in those particulates would also greatly benefit public health.
I have not had time to mention some of the other available fuels. The larger motor manufacturers are developing hydrogen fuel cell technology. Ford estimates that, within five years, it will make a fuel cell car available to the public. Fuel cell cars use biomass-produced fuels such as methanol, which is converted into hydrogen and burned in an internal combustion engine, and produce exhaust fumes that are purely steam or water vapour. I understand that Brazil uses a great deal of methanol. Such technologies are being encouraged and developed.
I have hardly had time to touch on the issue of capital allowances. I know that the debate will not be answered by a Treasury Minister, and I apologise for raising taxation issues, but I want to make one point. The conversion to LPG of vehicles, particularly fleet vehicles and large commercial vehicles, would be greatly assisted not only by developing the vital infrastructure but by introducing 100 per cent. capital write-down for such conversion. When Treasury Ministers read this debate in Hansard, I hope that they will consider advancing alternative fuels in that way.
I have raised a number of issues this afternoon. I hope that they will contribute to the debate on cleaner and better fuels to reduce pollution, improve air quality in inner cities and reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, in line with our obligations under the Kyoto agreements. I also hope that, as they become more common, those alternative fuels will help to improve public health and reduce NHS costs, as well as reduce the damage that sulphur dioxide emissions cause to our buildings. I believe that the issues I have raised are important. Conversion to LPG and other such fuels will

43WH
not only lead to cost savings for motorists, but benefit the environment and public health, about which I care passionately.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on securing this debate, and on giving notice of some of the key issues that he has raised. Alternative fuels is a subject of extensive interest, and the related issues deserve to be widely aired. We are now aware that, as an owner of an LPG bi-fuel vehicle, my hon. Friend has a particular interest in the subject. He is not alone: the Government car service converts its fleet to alternative fuels as vehicles are replaced, and my own ministerial car has been converted to gas.
Now, more than ever before, we need a consensus on transport. We do not want to force people out of their cars or force hauliers out of business, but every sensible person who participates in the transport debate recognises that we cannot go on as we are. Congestion is costing the country billions of pounds, climate change is the greatest threat that the world faces today, and we are increasingly aware of the impact of poor air quality on health.
Instead of wringing our hands over those problems, we must start solving them. The integrated transport White Paper, which was published last year, and the recently published Transport Bill are important steps towards providing solutions, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out the way forward for transport over the next 10 years. As he explained, we need an efficient transport system to support a prosperous economy, counter social exclusion and maintain our quality of life. We need greater investment from the private sector and the public sector. Part of the answer is to improve public transport, but we recognise that the car will remain an important means of mobility for millions of people, so we must ensure that road vehicles are cleaner, quieter and more fuel-efficient.
Here, there is good news. As a result of tighter vehicle emission and fuel quality standards, new road vehicles are already cleaner. As manufacturers gear up to meet the European Union voluntary agreements on new car fuel efficiency, vehicles will quickly become more fuel-efficient. In some areas, that will not be enough. Everyone recognises the scale of the problem posed by climate change, and noise is an issue of increasing concern. Although our health-based air quality standards will be met across the majority of the country by the deadlines set out in our air quality strategy, there will be pollution hot-spots, especially for nitrogen dioxide and particulates. Alternative fuels provide one way of addressing those problems.
Gas fuels can offer significant air quality benefits. Compared with diesel engines, liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas can offer substantial benefits with regard to particulates and nitrogen oxides, which are the air pollutants of greatest concern in road transport terms. Road fuel gases produce less visible smoke and odour than diesel, and such vehicles can be substantially quieter than their diesel counterparts. That
44WH
can benefit night deliveries of goods, for example. If one takes into account life cycle, rather than tail-pipe emissions alone, CO2 emissions from those fuels will be lower than from petrol.
Battery-electric vehicles, which produce no exhaust pipe emissions, are even better than gas fuel vehicles in that regard. However, we must remember that, essentially, those emissions will be transferred to power stations. None the less, on a life-cycle basis, battery electrics may benefit the climate and improve local air quality. Hybrid electric vehicles can be significantly more fuel-efficient and quieter than their conventionally fuelled counterparts. Potentially, fuel cells offer virtually non-existent tail-pipe emissions and life cycle benefits in respect of CO2.
I should like to explain our approach to deciding between different policy measures. Solutions have to contain three elements. They have to be practical, timely and cost-effective. It is the duty of every responsible Government to ensure that taxpayers' money is carefully spent, and this area is no exception.
The Government fully support alternative fuels. We have introduced fiscal incentives for gas fuels, so that the difference in duty between liquefied petroleum gas—LPG—and compressed natural gas and diesel is the widest in Europe. This year we increased the funding to the Powershift programme, which provides grants to help fleet operators to offset the additional capital cost of alternatively fuelled vehicles, by 40 per cent. compared with last year. In the last Budget we doubled the vehicle excise duty rate for the cleanest buses and lorries to a maximum of £1,000.
Projects and initiatives at a local level are already starting to make a difference. The ALTER project is designed to produce concerted action by cities across Europe to give preferential access to certain areas to vehicles with zero or low emissions. Some local authorities are discussing the possibility of using low emission zones to reduce vehicle-related pollution in towns and cities. It is likely that gas-powered vehicles will fall into the categories of vehicles allowed to enter such zones, because they tend to be significantly cleaner than their conventionally fuelled counterparts.
Local authorities and other public sector fleets are at the forefront of pushing forward the market for alternative fuels. The London borough of Southwark in London, for example, is involved in the ZEUS—zero and low emission vehicles in urban society—project. That is a consortium of local authorities in London, Coventry and other European cities examining the use of cleaner fuels and technologies to improve air quality and promote energy efficiency. It has negotiated competitive prices for a range of electric vehicles. The City of Westminster council has just taken delivery of the first commercial fuel cell vehicle, for which the Powershift programme, sponsored by my Department, provided a partial grant.
Police forces have also shown their keenness to use alternative fuels. Humberside police in Yorkshire, for example, were awarded Powershift funding for more than 100 LPG vehicles at the end of last year. I am delighted to report that Leeds city council, which is certainly in Yorkshire, has been offered a Powershift grant towards the purchase of two electric vans.

45WH
However, the debate should not be limited to gas fuels. Battery-electric vehicles have a role to play in niche markets. More exciting are the alternative fuels and technologies of the future. Hybrid electric vehicles use two power sources: a conventional engine and an electric motor. They are, therefore, substantially more fuel-efficient than conventional technology. Hybrids are already on sale in some parts of the world, and we can expect to see them here in the next few months.
Fuel cell vehicles offering high efficiency and low emissions are slightly further into the future, but will be on the roads in the next few years. It is no exaggeration to say that the way in which vehicles are powered will have changed more in the last 10 years of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st, than in the 90 years before that. Who would have thought, looking at the first steam-powered vehicles of the 1890s, that 100 years later we would be contemplating the sleek, clean, quiet fuel cell vehicles of the near future?
Those dramatic advances are being supported by the Government. Through the fuel cell programme, we are supporting research and development on advanced fuel cells to the tune of £2 million, with that amount being matched by industry. So far, we have supported 109 projects with a total value of about £56 million. We expect the next phase of the project to support around 15 proposals with a Government contribution of around £3 million.
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has recently approved a number of fuel cell projects under its new and renewable energy programme. The Foresight vehicle programme, aiming at the 15 to 20-year horizon, is a further example of Government-sponsored research. It is an umbrella programme of industry-led automotive research that aims to co-ordinate Government funding across Whitehall, focusing on advanced technologies for the future. The programme has proved a great success and includes projects investigating advanced propulsion systems and innovative fuel systems. Hybrid and electric vehicle technologies are also included. The Government have made more than £12 million available for these and other Foresight projects. The portfolio continues to increase as the programme moves forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East has suggested that vehicle excise duty should be based on a wider range of environmental impacts. Taxation is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor, who has said that he will announce full details on graduated VED at the next Budget. Meanwhile, I am sure that he will keenly read the observations made by my hon. Friend. He has already said that there will be four VED bands, based on CO2 emissions, with the potential to reward less polluting fuels. The system developed by the Environment Agency is interesting, and my officials have had discussions about that system.
It is important that the Government take into account all the environmental impacts of particular fuels. However, we are not yet at the stage where we can adopt a fully comprehensive system. Many uncertainties remain about the exact life-cycle emissions of different
46WH
fuels and technologies. That is one reason why my Department, through the cleaner vehicles task force, has commissioned research to assess how much information is already available about the life-cycle emissions of different fuels and vehicles.
I said earlier that the solutions to the problems of poor air quality, noisy streets and the threat of climate change must be practical, timely and cost-effective. We cannot afford simply to assume that alternative fuels are the way forward. We have, therefore, asked the cleaner vehicles task force to take a closer look at alternative fuels. We asked the alternative fuels sub-group of the task force to do three things: to consider the merits and longer-term potential of alternative fuels and technologies; to examine the barriers to introducing alternative fuels to the marketplace; and to consider the mechanisms for removing those barriers and developing an improved infrastructure to make those fuels more widely available. We have stressed that this work must be set within the context of practicability, timeliness and cost-effectiveness.
The group is near to delivering a final report, which we expect to publish early next year. Cost-effectiveness analysis has been a key parameter to its work. When we receive the task force's recommendations, we will use them further to refine Government policy on alternative fuels. I do not anticipate a major change to our current belief that, from an environmental perspective, the best use of gas fuels is in urban areas to replace vehicles that would otherwise use diesel. We hope to ensure that those fleets are given every opportunity to switch from diesel. Hybrid electric and fuel cell technologies are likely to become more widely applicable, especially as one of their major benefits will be in the area of CO2 emissions, which are a global rather than a local issue.
Another issue raised by my hon. Friend is that of problems experienced by some fuel suppliers in obtaining planning permission for new LPG refuelling sites. My Department is aware of that issue. It is important that local authorities take their planning and health and safety responsibilities seriously, but we must bear in mind the contribution that gas fuels can make to meeting our air quality targets. I can, therefore, promise that we will address the issue of planning guidelines for LPG refuelling points in the final version of PPG13—the Department's planning policy guidance on transport issues to be published next year.
I end by re-emphasising our commitment to alternative fuels. We cannot continue to use energy in the way that we have, or to ask those who are suffering from respiratory problems to suffer further as a result of traffic-related pollution. We firmly believe that alternative fuels and technologies are part of the answer in creating a sustainable transport system. The role of the different fuels and technologies varies—some are best suited to niche applications, others are more widely applicable. However, we have no doubt that they must be part of our strategy for delivering a transport system suitable for the next century.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the storage on private land of nuclear weapons by companies involved in their manufacture. [102524]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 December 1999,Official Report, column 457W. Nuclear weapons are constructed on Ministry of Defence land and remain in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence at all times.

  Mr. Tony Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what briefing the United Kingdom Government have received from the US Government on their sub-critical nuclear test programme. [102128]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under the auspices of the 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement the UK and the US have regular exchanges on aspects of nuclear warhead stockpile stewardship. These have included briefings on the scope and outcome of US sub-critical experiments carried out at the nevada Test Site. Precise details of these exchanges are being withheld under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects(a) the first Apache helicopter to be flying in the United Kingdom and (b) the first squadron to be available for deployment on operations. [101861]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The first WAH-64 Apache helicopter flew in the UK on 26 August 1999. Several trial flights have been conducted since. The nine aircraft required to equip the first squadron are expected to be delivered by December 2000. There will then follow a period of training after which the squadron will be ready for deployment.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which NATO multiple-role aircraft took part in both combat air patrols and ground attack missions over Kosovo. [102248]

  Mr. Hoon
  No Royal Navy or Royal Air Force aircraft were dual-roled for combat air patrols and ground attack missions during the Kosovo air campaign.

  Although I can confirm that a number of NATO aircraft committed to Op Allied Force did have a multi-role capability, given the size and complexity of the operation it is not possible to provide details of which NATO multiple role aircraft took part in both combat air patrols and ground attack missions over Kosovo.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Leisure and Tourism (River Thames)
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what qualifications or experience each of the senior managers of London River Services have relating to the provision of leisure and tourism services on the River Thames; [102117]

  (2) what independent economic studies have been undertaken to assess the impact on the leisure and tourism industry of the reintroduction of river bus services on the River Thames. [102120]

  Mr. Hill
  The promotion of the River Thames for tourism and leisure purposes is an important part of our objective of improving and enhancing the use of the river. London Transport's subsidiary, London River Services Ltd. (LRS), has done excellent work in taking forward this objective and I am confident that it fully shares our appreciation of the role of the importance of continuing to provide high quality services for tourists. In this context my hon. Friend may wish to note that LRS is now seeking membership of the London Tourist Board in its own right.

  The management team of LRS has extensive experience and expertise in the tourism and leisure markets and LRS is also able to draw on London Transport's experience and specialist staff.

  It is for LRS to decide whether it needs independent advice on the implications of individual licence applications for new services. However, I understand that it has in place measures to evaluate the impact on existing operations before new licences are awarded.

  Housing Green Paper
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Housing Green Paper. [102030]

  Mr. Mullin
  We intend to publish a Housing Policy Green Paper in due course. The Green Paper will build on our achievements in housing to ensure that everyone is offered the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence.

  Council Leaders (Criminal Offences)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by(a) name, (b) local authority and (c) political party those local council leaders who have been (i) charged with and (ii) convicted of criminal offences since 1997. [101966]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally. We have introduced in the other place a Bill to set up a new tough ethical regime, complimenting the criminal justice system, which will ensure the highest standards of conduct in local government in England and Wales.

  Ghana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  95W
  (a) ministerial and (b) official visits to Ghana have been undertaken by his Department in each of the last five years. [101973]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: There have been four such visits:

  In May 1995, two officials visited Ghana for Air Services Talks;

  In 1996, one official undertook a visit to assess how the host state was assisting UK carriers in meeting their security obligations;

  In May 1997, two officials visited Ghana for Air Services Talks;

  In September 1999 the Minister for the Environment and two officials attended the North-South Environment Ministers meeting at Elmina.

  Solar Heating Panels
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of houses constructed in the last five years which contain solar heating panels; and if he will make a statement. [102353]

  Mr. Mullin
  Detailed information of this kind is not held centrally. We understand that, in total, around 2,000 solar heating systems per year are typically being installed throughout the UK. My Department's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, in encouraging good building design, advocates the incorporation of solar heating in appropriate cases. And the Department of Trade and Industry is working closely with the Solar Trade Association and others to promote good practice, to disseminate well-informed advice about solar heating and to support appropriate training.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to require bus companies to run services on public holidays; and if he will make a statement. [102178]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has no such powers. The majority of bus services outside London are operated commercially by private bus operators. Levels of service are partly a matter for operators, subject to the requirement that local bus services must be registered in advance with the Traffic Commissioner; he can take action against any operators who fail to run their services as registered. However, local authorities have the powers to let subsidy contracts for the provision of services which are not being provided commercially (on public holidays or otherwise) but which they judge to be socially necessary.

  Singapore Airlines
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the reason is for the length of time taken to respond to Singapore Airlines' request for fifth freedom rights from London Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement. [102686]
  96W
  Mr. Mullin
  At the bilateral negotiations which took place in February 1999 my officials confirmed that we would review Singapore's request for transatlantic fifth freedom rights either when we had liberalised the air services arrangements between the UK and the United States or in January 2000, whichever was the sooner. Bilateral negotiations concerning air services are scheduled to take place with Singapore next month when their request for transatlantic fifth freedom rights will be discussed.

  Hedges
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will introduce legislation to restrict the height to which(a) leylandii trees and (b) hedges will be allowed to grow next to the boundaries of properties. [102705]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are currently consulting on possible solutions to the problems caused by leylandii and other high hedges. These include both voluntary and statutory action. We hope as many people as possible will let us have their views, to help us decide whether more should be done to relieve this source of long-running and distressing neighbourhood disputes.

  Sewage Sludge
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what guidelines and regulations are in place to regulate the disposal of sewage sludge; [102571]

  (2) what advice he has given to water companies on the disposal of sewage sludge since the banning of such waste disposal at sea. [102572]

  Mr. Mullin
  Government guidance in "Raising the Quality", which was published in September 1998 as part of the Periodic Review of water industry price limits in England and Wales between 2000–05, stated that recovering value from sewage sludge through spreading on agricultural land is the best practicable environmental option for sludge in most circumstances.

  It is for individual water companies to decide their strategy for sewage sludge recycling, recovery and disposal, taking account of the costs and environmental requirements and benefits, in discussion with the Department, the Environment Agency and the Director General of Water Services. The Director General's final determinations of water company prices for the period 2000–05, issued on 25 November 1999, take account of the environmental requirements agreed with the Government. The final determinations expect improvements in the disposal of sewage sludge, including the disposal of additional sludge due to the ban on disposal at sea in December 1998. This will cost a total of £800 million between 2000–105.

  The following regulations and guidelines are in place in England and Wales to regulate the disposal of sewage sludge:

  (i) the spreading of sewage sludge on agricultural land is regulated by the Environment Agency under the Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations 1989, which are complemented by the "Code of Practice for Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge 1996." The Government support "The Safe Sludge Matrix" agreed in December 1998 by the water industry and major food

  97W
  retailers which introduces a range of precautionary changes in the requirements for the use of sewage sludge on agricultural land. Subject to consultation and Parliamentary approval, the Government intend to revise the Regulations and the associated Code of Practice during 2000 to place the provisions of the "Safe Sludge Matrix" on a statutory footing.

  (ii) the disposal of sewage sludge to landfill and the recovery of sewage sludge for the ecological improvement of non-agricultural land is controlled under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994.

  (iii) the disposal of sewage sludge by incineration is regulated by the Environment Agency through the Integrated Pollution Control system under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Further guidance is contained in the "Chief Inspector's Integrated Pollution Control Guidance Notes 1996." The proposed EC Waste Incineration Directive, currently under negotiation, will apply to sewage sludge incinerators and is likely to be implemented through powers under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, which will shortly supersede Part I of the 1990 Act.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to strengthen legislation protecting wild bird species(a) in general and (b) with particular reference to the species hard hit by the illegal trade to Malta; [102250]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the illegal wild caught bird trade on British bird species; what steps are currently being taken to protect British species; and if he will make a statement. [102251]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK's obligations to conserve wild birds under the EC Wild Birds Directive are fulfilled by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 1 of the Act makes it an offence to take birds from the wild and to possess a native species of bird unless it can be shown to be legally acquired. Furthermore, section 6 of the Act strengthens these controls making it an offence to sell, offer for sale, possess or transport for sale, any wild bird.

  All illegal trade in wildlife is a matter of concern. The Countryside Amenity and Conservation Bill will give extra powers for the prosecution of all wildlife criminals and wildlife law enforcement will be boosted by tougher measures such as custodial sentences. In addition, we are actively discussing with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee what further measures might be appropriate to protect threatened species, including points arising from the review of the schedules affording protection to species under the Act.

  The most recent information on levels of bird-related crime is the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds' report "Birdcrime 1998". This report shows that incidents reported to the RSPB of illegal trapping, sale and possession of both bird of prey species and other bird species have declined in the last five years. Of the incidents concerning non-bird of prey species, the majority concerned finches.

  In view of reports of illegal trade in wild birds, namely finches, to Malta the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is responsible for providing export health certificates, has introduced new inspection procedures to help prevent future smuggling of "caught" wild birds.

  Aquatic Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy for the forthcoming wildlife and countryside Bill to cover aquatic animals; and if he will make a statement. [102253]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Countryside Amenity and Conservation Bill will include provisions to protect Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and on Wildlife Enforcement, both of which will significantly improve species protection, although not aimed specifically at aquatic species. Wildlife crime, including crime relating to aquatic species, will be punishable by tougher measures such as custodial sentences.

  In addition to these provisions we are actively discussing with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee what further measures might be appropriate to protect threatened species including aquatic species. Work is under way on proposals, including points arising from the review of the schedules affording protection to species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, with a view to issuing a consultation document next year.

  Small Cetaceans
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to assess the impact of small, fast, personal watercraft on the behaviour and welfare of small cetaceans; and if he will make a statement. [102254]

  Mr. Mullin
  The issue of the use of personal watercraft was covered in the report of the Inter-Departmental Working Party on the Review of Byelaw Powers for the Coast, published by DETR in October 1998. This discussion paper highlighted a number of gaps in the coverage of existing byelaw powers, most notably with regard to protecting the environment. The working party recommended that local authorities should be given a general power to regulate coastal recreation activities which are outside the responsibility of other relevant authorities, for the purpose of protecting the wider environment. In addition, harbour authorities are able to seek harbour revision orders for environmental purposes. We have given a long-term commitment to introduce legislation to take forward those recommendations in the review which require changes to the law.

  Since 1990 the UK has funded the UK Cetaceans Strandings Investigation Project, under which post mortems are carried out on stranded cetaceans to determine cause of death. There is no indication that collision with personal watercraft is a significant cause of death of cetaceans. However the Government are aware that recreational activities, including the use of personal watercraft, has the potential for disturbing cetaceans. As a result of this the Government published in March 1999 the guidelines "Minimising disturbance to cetaceans from recreation at sea". As highlighted in the species action plans for the harbour porpoise and for small dolphins, these guidelines are scheduled for review next year, and account will be taken of the increased use of personal watercraft.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the changes made each year in determining Standard Spending Assessments for shire district councils since their inception, including changes made in the weighting given to different factors; [102426]

  (2)if he will list the changes made each year in determining Standard Spending Assessments for shire counties since their inception, including changes made in the weighting given to different factors. [102427]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Changes in the method of determining Standard Spending Assessments are summarised in the relevant editions of the "Standard Spending Assessments Handbook", "Standard Spending Assessments Authority by Authority", and "Standard Spending Assessments Guide to Methodology", copies of which are in the Library. For the most recent years, the information is contained in circular letters to local authorities, dated 2 December 1997, 2 December 1998 and 25 November 1999, copies of which are in the Library. For convenience, copies of the relevant extracts have been placed in the Library. The Standard Spending Assessments formulae, including the weightings given to the factors, are set out in the relevant "Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England)" or "The Local Government Finance Report (England)".

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Standard Spending Assessment per head of population in(a) the local authority area containing the constituency of North-East Derbyshire and (b) the City of Westminster; and what are the estimated figures for 2000–01. [102431]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (a) The Standard Spending Assessment per head of population figures for authorities which fall partly or wholly within the constituency of North-East Derbyshire are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  Provisional 2000–01

  Chesterfield

  95

  99

  North East Derbyshire

  76

  79

  Derbyshire CC

  640

  673

  Derbyshire Police

  53

  54

  It is not possible to calculate an area figure for any parliamentary constituency unless its boundary corresponds exactly with a local authority district boundary.

  (b) The revenue support grant per head of population figures for Westminster are as follows:

  £

  Westminster

  1999–2000

  1,153

  Provisional 2000–01

  1,162

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the percentage changes in(a) standard spending
  100W
  assessments and (b) revenue support grant for (i) shire counties and (ii) shire districts between the settlement for 1999–2000 and his proposed settlement for 2000–01, ranked and numbered in descending order; [102428]

  (2) if he will list for 2000–01 the value per head of population of the proposed (a) revenue support grant and (b) standard spending assessments for (i) shire district councils and (ii) shire counties, ranked and numbered in descending order. [102429]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Tables showing these figures have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the revenue support grant per head of population in(a) the local authority area containing the constituency of North East Derbyshire and (b) the City of Westminster; and what are the estimated figures for 2000–01. [102430]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  (a) The revenue support grant per head of population figures for authorities which fall partly or wholly within the constituency of North East Derbyshire are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Chesterfield

  35

  34

  North East Derbyshire

  15

  13

  Derbyshire CC

  247

  241

  Derbyshire Police

  16

  14

  1Provisional

  It is not possible to calculate an area figure for any parliamentary constituency unless its boundary corresponds exactly with a local authority district boundary.

  (b)The revenue support grant per head of population figures for Westminister are as follows.

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Westminster

  601

  575

  1Provisional

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes will be made to the standard spending assessments of each shire district council in 2000–01 as a result of their enhanced population figures; and if he will rank and number the changes in descending order. [102387]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested will be calculated and placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the standard spending assessment for 2000–01 for each shire county local education authority divided by the number of pupils and ranked and numbered in descending order. [102721]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following table shows the ranked education standard spending assessment per pupil figures for shire counties.
  101W

  Provisional 2000–01 Education Standard Spending Assessment per pupil—shire counties (in descending order)

  Local authority

  Education SSA (£/pupil)

  Ranking

  Hertfordshire

  2,864

  1

  East Sussex

  2,848

  2

  Essex

  2,831

  3

  Kent

  2,831

  4

  Surrey

  2,810

  5

  Oxfordshire

  2,794

  6

  Buckinghamshire

  2,787

  7

  Durham

  2,778

  8

  Bedfordshire

  2,768

  9

  Cornwall

  2,758

  10

  Norfolk

  2,746

  11

  West Sussex

  2,740

  12

  Lancashire

  2,730

  13

  Lincolnshire

  2,724

  14

  Cumbria

  2,715

  15

  Devon

  2,714

  16

  Northumberland

  2,713

  17

  North Yorkshire

  2,683

  18

  Nottinghamshire

  2,680

  19

  Suffolk

  2,676

  20

  Shropshire

  2,665

  21

  Hampshire

  2,664

  22

  Northamptonshire

  2,657

  23

  Somerset

  2,646

  24

  Cambridgeshire

  2,644

  25

  Dorset

  2,642

  26

  Wiltshire

  2,634

  27

  Gloucestershire

  2,631

  28

  Derbyshire

  2,613

  29

  Warwickshire

  2,610

  30

  Cheshire

  2,602

  31

  Worcestershire

  2,599

  32

  Staffordshire

  2,580

  33

  Leicestershire

  2,556

  34

  Pupils are the sum of Pupils aged 4, 5–10, 11–15, and 16† as defined in the Draft Local Government Finance Report.

  Privatised Ports Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities private police forces in(a) ports and (b) airports have under airports and aviation security laws. [102435]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the main, airport authorities employ either their own staff or, more usually, contract security companies to carry out security duties at airports required by the Department under the Aviation Security Act 1982, as amended by the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (AMSA). However, Belfast International Airport employs its own police force, numbering about 50. Police officers' duties include perimeter security, patrolling the airport restricted zone and controlling access at one staff checkpoint to the restricted zone. In addition, they will respond to any incidents.

  The ports of Belfast, Larne, Liverpool, Bristol, Dover and Tilbury, covered by the AMSA legislation, have private police forces. Each port makes its own arrangements for the use of Ports police, and these vary between the ports.

  In addition, Felixstowe, which is not covered by the AMSA legislation, employs private ports police to carry out its own security functions.

  London Underground
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the letter of engagement was signed and when the completed work was delivered for the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, "London Underground: Bond Financing vs The PPP". [102644]

  Mr. Hill
  PricewaterhouseCoopers was formally appointed by London Transport to provide financial advice to LT and Government with respect to the London Underground Public Private Partnership on 18 August 1998. Its report, "London Underground: Bond Financing vs The PPP", was completed in December 1999.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what fee is payable to PricewaterhouseCoopers for its report, "London Underground: Bond Financing vs The PPP", which was deposited in the Library on 8 December; [102673]

  (2) how many chargeable hours were incurred by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the preparation of its report, "London Underground: Bond Financing vs The PPP", which was deposited in the Library on 8 December. [102672]

  Mr. Hill
  PricewaterhouseCoopers generated this report as a small part of its standard advisory work on the Public Private Partnership. It is not possible to identify separately the costs involved, but they can accordingly be expected to be small.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide the detailed assumptions and calculations used by PricewaterhouseCoopers in the preparation of its report, "London Underground: Bond Financing vs The PPP", which was deposited in the Library on 8 December. [102671]

  Mr. Hill
  The PricewaterhouseCoopers report already includes notes explaining the basis for its assumptions and calculations.

  Bus Employees' Pension
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how much has been spent on legal fees relating to the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust and National Bus Pension Fund by(a) his Department and (b) the Government as a whole; [102645]

  (2) when the members of the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust and National Bus Pension Fund are likely to receive the £356 million which he announced on 15 June would be returned to them; what the reasons are for the delay in making the payments; and if he will make a statement; [102646]

  (3) when the £356 million which the Government are returning to the members of the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust and National Bus Pension Fund was handed over to the trustees for eventual distribution. [102647]

  Mr. Hill
  The previous Government decided to fund litigation by the National Bus Company pension trustees following a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman. This litigation was concluded with the approval by the High Court on 30 July of the terms of a negotiated settlement. Expenditure by my Department on legal and other costs related to the litigation has been £1,965,000. Of this,
  103W
  costs incurred by the trustees were £1,723,000 and the Department's costs were £242,000. These figures cover the costs of the litigation. I do not have information on any costs incurred by other Government Departments in connection with the NBC issue.

  The Government paid the settlement sum—£355.7 million—over to the trustees on the day of the High Court's decision.

  Responsibility for deciding on, and implementing, the distribution of the settlement amongst those eligible to receive a share of it must remain entirely with the NBC pension trustees. This is a substantial and complex task. However I am sure the trustees will be seeking to complete it as quickly as possible.

  Organophosphates (Aircrew)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to identify potential health hazards to civilian aircraft flight officers, cabin crews and passengers from exposure to organophosphate lubricants, in relation to the incident involving a BAe 146 aircraft in Sweden on 12 November; what steps have been taken by the Health and Safety Executive to improve precautions against such exposure since August; and if he will make a statement. [102802]

  Mr. Mullin
  The incident referred to involved an American manufactured engine on a Swedish registered aircraft. The UK authorities are not therefore involved in the investigation of the incident. A fault was identified with the engine which has now been returned to the United States for examination by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in conjunction with the manufacturer and British Aerospace. It is far too early to say whether this incident involved an oil leak or any exposure to organophosphate contamination.

  I have nothing further to add to the statement on Organophosphates in aircraft engine lubricants made by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on 6 May 1999, Official Report, column 434W.

  Rates Revaluation
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the decapitalisation rates to be used in non-domestic rates for the 2000 revaluation. [102849]

  Ms Armstrong
  In August we published in a consultation paper our proposals on the decapitalisation rates to be used in non-domestic rates for the 2000 revaluation. The proposal to prescribe the rates was widely supported and, after considering the points made to us, we have decided to retain the current rates of 5.5 per cent. for most properties and 3.67 per cent. for educational, health care and Ministry of Defence properties.

  However, many respondents felt that the proposal to prescribe rates for only certain types of properties could lead to increased uncertainty. As a result, the benefits of the prescribed rates could be lost. Therefore, after reconsidering this, we have decided that the prescribed
  104W
  rates should apply to all properties assessed on the contractors basis of valuation. This continues the arrangements currently in force for the 1995 rating list.

  Regulations implementing this decision will be made shortly.

  Local Government Act 1999
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish guidance to best value authorities on how they might meet the requirements of Part I of the Local Government Act 1999; and if he will make a statement. [102850]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am publishing today statutory guidance under the provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Local Government Act 1999 and other guidance on how authorities should carry out their responsibilities under part I of the Act.

  Best Value has a key role to play in modernising local government. It will drive up standards, encourage innovation and promote competition. It will make a vital difference to the quality and effectiveness of local services and put local people first. The guidance will help local authorities implement Best Value, beginning with the publication of their Best Value Performance Plans on 31 March 2000. It follows widespread consultation with local government, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and other key partners.

  Copies of this guidance, DETR Circular 10–99, are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses, together with a list of the respondents.

  Housing Standards
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to replace the housing fitness standard with a health and safety based rating system. [102881]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government remain committed to developing a rating system as a replacement for the current housing fitness standard. The basic principles of the system are now well established and have received widespread support. Additional piloting with local authorities is being carried out and the consultants' report is now expected in February or March. If we are satisfied that the system will be both robust and practical we will aim to roll it out from next Spring. This would allow time for a training programme for environmental health officers to be set up and enable local authorities to adopt the principles of the new system in parallel with the existing fitness regime. Enforcement action based on the new system would require primary legislation. I hope to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity.

  Development Plans
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish new guidance on the preparation of development plans. [102904]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following the public consultation on a draft earlier this year, I have today published a revision of Planning Policy Guidance note 12—Development
  105W
  Plans (PPG12). This sets out new procedures to improve the delivery of development plans in England. PPG12 provides a strategic overview of the role and importance of development plans within the planning system. It stresses the need for plans to be prepared and up-dated more quickly and efficiently; emphasises that plans should be clear and succinct; and highlights the importance of integrating sustainable development and transport with land-use policies in development plans.

  As a further measure to improve the delivery of development plans, Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) (England) Regulations 1999 have been laid before Parliament today, and are due to come into force on 4 January. These regulations will provide a statutory framework for the new development plan procedures. In addition, my Department has published two new codes of practice for the public explaining the procedures for both structure plans, and for local plans and Unitary Development Plans.

  This package of measures to improve the delivery of development plans confirms the Government's commitment to the plan led system and is an important step towards our objective of modernising planning. I have arranged for copies of PPG12 and the codes of practice to be placed in the House Libraries.

  Housing Corporation
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the forthcoming Finance Management and Policy Review of the Housing Corporation. [102973]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly finance, management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies my Department will conduct a thorough review of the Housing Corporation beginning today. The first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study. This will assess the extent to which the Housing Corporation's functions are necessary for the achievement of the Government's policies, and whether there is scope for contracting out or transferring all or part of its functions to another body.

  The progress made by the Housing Corporation since the previous review in 1995 will be examined and the results of that examination and of the prior options study will inform a detailed review of the Housing Corporation's policy and financial management systems. The review will look particularly at the effectiveness of the Corporation's regulatory framework for registered social landlords, its arrangements for making informed decisions on investment in social housing and ways of stimulating improved performance in the registered social landlord sector.

  To minimise the uncertainty the prior options study will cause, I expect that study will be completed in April 2000 and the conclusions published shortly afterwards. The time required for the more detailed review cannot be foreseen, but I would expect it to be complete by autumn 2000 followed by publication of the conclusions.
  106W
  An advisory group including members from bodies with an interest in the Housing Corporation's work has been set up and the Department will be seeking the views of a wide range of bodies which deal with the Housing Corporation.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the number of reported incidents there were of drink driving in the last 12 months, broken down by region; [101916]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the increased incidence of drink driving over recent Christmas and new year holiday periods. [101917]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistics of screening breath tests and the number positive or refused are published annually in "British Test Statistics, England and Wales", a Home Office Statistical Bulletin. The 1998 edition, Issue 16/99, was published on 9 September 1999, and contains figures for each police force area. Figures for each month of the year are also shown, December being the nearest to the Christmas and the new year period in the statistics held centrally. (The Association of Chief Police Officers has continued to monitor this period, but in recent years only in terms of tests given after collisions).

  Figures for 1999 are not yet available.

  A copy of the bulletin referred to is in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when the consultants' review on the impact of the introduction of the changes to Council Tax Benefit Regulations will be published; and if he will make a statement; [101040]

  (2) if he will list the local authorities which have taken part in the consultants' review of the impact of the changes to Council Tax Benefit Regulations. [101039]

  Angela Eagle
  In March 1999 we commissioned independent researchers to monitor the effects of the Council Tax Benefit (CTB) restriction introduced in April 1998. Because of the complexities of the research involving a small, tightly specified group of CTB claims and their corresponding council tax accounts and the interrogation of two IT systems, we began with a feasibility study. In July 1999 we decided that there was just enough evidence to suggest that local authorities (LAs) would be able to provide us with the required information to assess whether the research was practical.

  We originally approached 55 local authorities with a view of obtaining data from 40. However, so far we have only received data from 22 authorities, and in some cases these are partial data. On the whole, participating LAs have sought to co-operate but have encountered difficulties and delays in extracting usable data. Currently we do not have enough data of sufficient quality to carry out reliable analyses. Therefore, we are planning to write

  107W
  again to the 33 local authorities who have not yet provided data to ask them to help us. At this stage, therefore, we cannot be precise about the research and publication details.

  Participation in social research conducted on behalf of the Department is entirely voluntary; this applies to individuals and organisations. In order to encourage involvement and ensure as representative a picture as possible, we protect the confidentiality of respondents. As we provide a contractual assurance that participants, including local authorities in this case, will not be identified, we cannot list the names of authorities which have taken part in the review of the impact of changes to the Council Tax Benefit Regulations. However, individual local authorities may choose to indicate they have participated.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals to reform Housing Benefit. [102094]

  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, while also achieving value for money and taking account of the views and needs of local people.

  We are already working towards this aim. For example we have introduced a regime which requires more rigorous verification and checking, (including a legal requirement which involves establishing a person's identity). In addition, over 200 local authorities have already joined the Royal Mail "Do Not Redirect" scheme, to prevent fraudulent claimants submitting benefit claims from false addresses.

  From next April the Best Value regime will be introduced. This will drive up standards of service delivery in local authorities through a series of challenging targets against key areas of performance.

  We will present further proposals for reform of the Housing Benefit scheme in a Green Paper in due course. This will further tackle the weaknesses of the system we inherited.

  Pensions
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to allow personal pension fund holders to purchase fixed-term annuities as an alternative to life annuities. [102188]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to allow personal pension fund holders to purchase fixed term annuities as an alternative to life annuities. An essential feature of a pension is that it provides a guaranteed income for the rest of the pensioner's life. A fixed term annuity would not achieve this and would run the risk of leaving pensioners without any source of income in their later years.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the entitlement period for family credit payments; and if payments are made (i) in arrears or (ii) in advance of an entitlement period. [102493]
  108W
  Angela Eagle
  Family Credit benefit weeks run from Tuesday to Monday. If the date of the claim is a Tuesday, entitlement begins then. Otherwise, entitlement begins on the first Tuesday following the date of claim. The entitlement period is for 26 weeks. There are two main methods of payment, Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) and order book.

  ACT payment is made in arrears on the last working day in each four-week period for the duration of the 26 week period. Payment by order book payment is made weekly in arrears each Tuesday.

  Working Families Tax Credit, which is administered by the Inland Revenue, replaced Family Credit from 5 October 1999. It has the same entitlement period.

  Benefit Agency Standards Committee
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the appointment of members of the Benefits Agency Standards Committee has been completed. [102907]

  Angela Eagle
  I am pleased to announce that membership of the Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Peter Lehmann has been agreed.

  The Committee's independence has been assured by the appointment of seven independent non-executive members alongside two operational executives from the Benefits Agency. The membership reflects a diversity of background and experience. The full list of members together with short pen pictures of each has been placed in the Library.

  The Committee will report directly to the Benefits Agency Chief Executive providing him with independent assurance on standards of decision making in the Agency, as well as making recommendations for continuous improvement in the quality of that decision making.

  Asbestos-related Disease
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 58W, on asbestos-related disease, if he will publish the advice he received from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on awards for bilateral diffuse pleural thickening. [101621]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council Report "Asbestos Related Diseases" (Cm 3467), was published in November 1996. A copy is in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Airport Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what responsibilities he retains in relation to the oversight of(a) security of airports in Northern Ireland and (b) management of the Northern Ireland Airport Police; and what responsibilities are devolved. [102440]

  Mr. Ingram
  As policing and security are reserved matters for administration by this Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
  109W
  has retained all of his current responsibilities for the oversight of security at Northern Ireland airports and management of the Northern Ireland Airport Police. None of these responsibilities are being devolved at this time to the new Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what undertakings were given by the purchasers at the time of the privatisation of the Northern Ireland International Airport in relation to the future management and independence of the Northern Ireland Airport Police; and what scrutiny has been conducted since as to the performance of these undertakings. [102441]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this subject has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Diplomatic Posts (Costs)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the annual running costs in the last year for which figures are available of(a) the United Kingdom's embassies in the EU, (b) the British Embassy in Washington DC, (c) the British Consulate General in San Francisco and (d) the British embassies and consulates in the USA in total. [102444]

  Mr. Hain
  The running costs (in pounds sterling) for 1998–99 are as follows:

  Countries

  £

  (a) Embassies in the EU

  Austria

  1,624,989

  Belgium

  1,613,336

  Denmark

  1,979,145

  Eire

  2,021,151

  Finland

  1,622,182

  France

  8,311,896

  Germany

  5,334,710

  Greece

  3,020,542

  Italy

  5,689,673

  Luxembourg

  904,600

  Netherlands

  2,377,494

  Portugal

  2,223,375

  Spain

  5,850,231

  Sweden

  1,917,642

  Total

  44,490,966

  (b) British Embassy Washington DC

  14,288,628

  (c) Consulate General San Francisco

  634,434

  (d) USA in Total USA Total

  20,720,979

  The costs of the Embassies include spend, incurred at post, on behalf of their subordinate posts.The figures given are purely the cash element charged to the posts in question.

  No support costs have been included.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Under-Secretary of State for Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) will reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, West's letter of 7 October regarding Mr. Dahunsi. [102423]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The hon. Member for New Forest, West's letter of 7 October, addressed to Mr. O'Brien at the Home Office, was forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for reply and was received in the Visa Correspondence Unit on 25 October. The Unit replied to the hon. Member on 8 December.

  Hong Kong
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the status of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration on the question of Hong Kong after the Joint Liaison Group ceases to meet on 1 January; and if he will make a statement. [102905]

  Mr. Battle
  The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong is a treaty registered at the United Nations which creates international rights and obligations for both parties to it. The Joint Declaration has no termination date, although China has made an explicit commitment that its basic policies on Hong Kong, which include maintaining Hong Kong's capitalist system and way of life, will remain unchanged for 50 years from 1 July 1997. Under paragraph 7 of the Joint Declaration, China committed herself to abide by all her commitments in the Joint Declaration.

  Her Majesty's Government will continue to take a close interest in developments in Hong Kong and to report to Parliament on the implementation of the Joint Declaration.

  Kosovo
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the proposed export of electrical firing cable to the HALO Trust in Kosovo. [102906]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have granted a licence for the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of 7 x 500m lengths of electrical firing cable for use by the HALO Trust, an organisation engaged in humanitarian demining activities in Kosovo on behalf of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). These goods are on the UK's Military List.

  UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1160 imposed an arms embargo on the FRY. The only exception to this embargo is that in UNSCR 1244, which provides that prohibitions imposed by UNSCR 1160 shall not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material for use by the international civil and security presence in Kosovo. We have notified the UN Sanctions Committee of this export and they have raised no objection. The export of the equipment required for demining purposes is not prohibited by the EU arms embargo.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to encourage the Government of Russia to negotiate with the Government of Chechnya; and if he will list the names of those who are able to represent Chechnya. [102258]

  Mr. Vaz
  In all our contacts with the Russian Government we have pressed them to pursue a negotiated solution with the elected Chechen authorities, including Chechen President Maskhadov, and to use the good offices of the OSCE.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to Spain about the incident on 29 November when a Gibraltarian was prevented entry into Spain on the basis that as a British passport holder he could not drive a Gibraltar-registered car; what undertakings have been received from Spain that similar actions will not occur again; and if he will make a statement. [102434]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are aware of the incident at the border on 29 November and understand that a report was made to the Royal Gibraltar Police. We understand that the individual concerned was able to cross the border into Spain.

  We regularly make clear to the Spanish authorities their obligations to operate the border in a way consistent with their EC obligations on free movement of persons.

  Orphans' Visas
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the changes in charges since 1997 for visas for orphans visiting the UK for holidays from the former Republic of Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [102464]

  Mr. Vaz
  The fee for a single entry visitor's visa has remained unchanged since 1995 when it was set at its current level of £33.

  There are no special charging arrangements for visitors from the former Republic of Yugoslavia.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current work programme of the Performance and Innovation Unit including(a) the titles of all reports in preparation and their expected publication dates and (b) any further subjects due to be examined by the unit during the period 2000 to 2002. [101180]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) is currently undertaking the following studies:
  Accountability and incentives for joined-up Government.The role of central Government at the regional and local level.Objectives for rural economies.Active ageing.The use of analysis and modelling in central Government.112W Longer term strategic challenges facing the Government.The pursuit and seizure of criminal assets.The Post Office network.Social, health, environmental and trade objectives on the global stage.Strategic options for the electronic delivery of Government services.
  The PIU aims to publish reports from the first five projects over the next two months. Decisions arising from the further projects will be made public in due course.

  Further PIU projects have not been decided.

  Institute of Public Policy Research
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the research work carried out or being carried out since 1 May 1997 on behalf of the Government by the Institute of Public Policy Research. [101730]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, it is a requirement that all such contracts are let in accordance with the Treasury procurement guidelines.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he has put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings with people outside his Office. [102368]

  The Prime Minister
  Decisions on the format of records of meetings normally depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of Geoffrey Norris in his Office's Policy Unit. [102480]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Norris has responsibility for Trade and Industry, and Regional and Planning Policy.

  State Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons governors general of Commonwealth states of which Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State are not invited to make State Visits to the United Kingdom. [101406]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Inward State Visits are made only by foreign and commonwealth Heads of State. It would not be appropriate for the Queen's representative in one of Her Majesty's other Realms to pay a State Visit to the United Kingdom.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Direct Access Government Internet Service
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to upgrade the Direct Access Government Internet Service which provides business with a one-stop shop for regulatory guidance and forms. [102967]
  113W
  Ms Hewitt
  I am pleased to announce that an improved version of the service is being launched today. As well as providing business with easier access to regulatory information they will be able to register which areas of regulation they are interested in and receive e-mailed links to the latest document releases on a daily basis. The new service can be accessed at http://www.dag-business.gov.uk and will be incorporated as part of the Small Business Service from next April.

  Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by his Department towards a binding commitment on tariff-free and quota-free access for exports from the poorest 48 countries in the world. [102301]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the UK Presidency of the European Union in 1998, the EU agreed to provide duty free access for essentially all products from the Least Developed Countries by 2005. We will be pressing the EU to fulfil this commitment as soon as possible. More generally, we will continue to call for zero tariffs to be applied to all goods from the Least Developed Countries, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised in his speech at Mansion House on 22 November.

  In addition, and notwithstanding the fact that the WTO Seattle Ministerial conference was suspended without agreement between member Governments on a new multilateral market access initiative for the Least Developed Countries, we will continue to urge other developed countries to match the EU's commitment.

  Rover
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the European Commission's response to the proposal for state aid to Rover; and if a revised proposal is being considered. [102204]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The UK officially notified its intention to provide aid for Longbridge at the end of August 1999. A number of questions were raised by the European Commission and these questions have been fully answered. We now anticipate that the Commission may open an Article 88(2) procedure on this case. An announcement is expected shortly. Such a procedure is normal practice and allows the European Commission to consider the views of third parties. We remain hopeful of a positive outcome to the investigation.

  We are not considering a revised proposal.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his latest estimate of the cost of the proposed state aid to Rover. [102205]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The offer of aid to Rover/BMW remains the same as that announced by the Secretary of State on 23 June 1999: a support package of £152 million, made up of £129 million Regional Selective Assistance (RSA), with the balance being made up by the local partners. The offer remains subject to clearance by the European Union.

  Ghana
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what export credit guarantees were made in respect of exports to Ghana in each of the last five years; how many of the guarantees have now lapsed; and how many payments have been made by the ECGD in respect of these guarantees. [101971]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: The number and value of ECGD guarantees made in respect of exports to Ghana in each of the last five years are detailed in the following table along with the payments made by ECGD in respect of these guarantees:

  Year

  Number of guarantees issued

  Value of guarantees £ million

  Payments made in each year £ million

  1994–95

  9

  132.48

  0

  1995–96

  4

  71.43

  0

  1996–97

  9

  108.92

  0

  1997–98

  2

  20.17

  2.32

  1998–99

  3

  17.65

  0.059

  1999–20001

  1

  1.01

  3.85

  1To 30 November

  Of the total value of claims paid of £6.23 million, £3.84 remains outstanding. Five of these guarantees have now lapsed.

  Horizon Project
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the documentation on the(a) business objectives, (b) rollout timetable, (c) costs and (d) partners of the Horizon project; and if the costs of implementation will be met by Her Majesty's Treasury or the Post Office. [101379]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) The objective of the revised Horizon project announced on 24 May this year, which will equip all post offices with a modem on-line electronic IT platform, is to enable Post Office Counters Ltd. to modernise existing services and attract new business to secure a viable future for the network as a whole.

  (b) The Post Office plans to complete the rollout of the Horizon platform to all post offices throughout the UK by the spring of 2001. 1,856 offices have so far been automated.

  (c) The revised Horizon project is expected to cost around £1 billion over the five year period to 2005.

  (d) The contract is between Post Office Counters Ltd. and ICL Pathway.

  (e) The Government have agreed to contribute £480 million towards the capital costs of the project. The remainder will be funded by the Post Office.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Internal Market Council held in Brussels on 7 December; and if he will make a statement. [102348]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I represented the UK at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 7 December.

  There were discussions on the new Single Market Strategy, the Joint Presidency Work Programme and the Commission's Single Market Scoreboard. There was

  115W
  general support from the Council, although some member states, including the UK, were unable to endorse all the Target Actions in the Single Market Strategy. The Council agreed Conclusions on Distance Marketing of Financial Services and on the Community Customs Code.

  The Council reached political agreement on Electronic Commerce (with Belgium abstaining). The Directive sets out a legal framework for electronic commerce in the internal market, based on the principle that the legislation of the service provider's home state applies. The Council reached unanimous political agreement on amendments to a number of directives concerning mutual recognition of qualifications, and political agreement on three food Directives harmonising labelling and compositional requirements for sugar, preserved milk and fruit juice (sugar agreed by unanimity, milk by qualified majority with Belgium against, and fruit juices by qualified majority with Belgium against and Netherlands abstaining).

  The UK reported in the context of a discussion on the Takeovers Directive that talks with Spain on a general settlement of the issue of communications between Gibraltar competent authorities and counterparts in other member states were making progress.

  The Commission reported progress on public procurement, Simpler Legislation in the Internal Market (SLIM) and exhaustion of trademark rights. The Council took note of reports on the Copyright Directive, the EU Data Protection Directive, the review of chemical policy and the follow-up to the Council Resolution on standardisation.

  There was no decision on the proposed Directive on Artists' Resale Rights; although a large majority supported the Presidency proposal there was a willingness to consider alternative solutions. The Presidency, the Commission and most member states are now pressing for agreement before the end of the year.

  Food Standards
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will publish the guidance he has given to the Food Standards Agency regarding the impact on its work of the World Trade Organisation Seattle round; [101650]

  (2) what representations he has received from the Food Standards Agency concerning the implications for its remit of the World Trade Organisation Seattle round. [101651]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Food Standards Agency will be formally established in spring 2000. It will be fully consulted on any changes which may be proposed to the WTO SPS Agreement (which sets out rules for trade measures to protect food safety, animal and plant health), or other WTO agreements which may have a bearing on its responsibilities.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many parking fines were incurred by Parcelforce vehicles in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997 and (d) 1998; and how many Parcelforce vehicles there are currently. [101680]
  116W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Parcelforce does not keep records of parking fines centrally, and this information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  The Road Traffic Act Regulation 1984 gives local authorities the power to make traffic regulation orders to restrict parking. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issue guidance to local authorities to give exemptions to the Post Office when carrying out statutory duties using licensed Royal Mail liveried vehicles engaged in the collection and delivery of letters in accordance with the statutory duty of the Post Office for the conveyance of letters. There is no similar guidance for Parcelforce vehicles.
  Parking fines are being incurred by Parcelforce drivers while on delivery as a result of vehicles which are parked illegally.

  Parcelforce Worldwide currently operates a total fleet of around 7,000 operational vehicles, the main types are:

  Quantity

  Vehicle type

  500

  Articulated motive units

  600

  Trailers

  3,000

  35 tonne vans

  1,000

  75 tonne trucks

  120

  Car derived vans

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of significant numbers of child benefit claimants switching from cash to direct bank account payments on the rural post office network; and if he will make a statement. [101328]

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has made of the impact on(a) post office incomes and (b) the viability of post offices of paying social security benefits directly into claimants' bank accounts; and if he will make a statement; [101373]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of post offices which would close in (a) the Vale of Glamorgan, (b) Wales and (c) the United Kingdom if social security benefits were to be paid directly into claimants' bank accounts. [101375]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There will be no change before 2003 to existing methods of paying social security benefits, under which recipients can choose between payment by order book at a post office and payment direct to a bank account using the automated credit transfer system (ACT). Some 54 per cent. of new child benefit recipients and 47 per cent. of new pensioners currently choose to have their benefits/pensions paid by ACT. The Horizon counters automation project will equip all post offices with a modern, on-line IT platform by 2001, and will enable the Post Office to extend its existing arrangements with the high street banks under which customers of those banks—including benefit recipients—can access their accounts at post offices. This project, to which the Government have made a significant financial contribution, represents a major investment in the future of the post office network to which the Government
  117W
  remain fully committed. It will ensure that all benefit recipients who wish to do so will be able to access their benefits in cash at post offices. It will also offer other bank customers the benefits of wider availability of banking services, especially in rural areas.

  For the longer-term future, the Prime Minister has asked the Performance and Innovation Unit within the Cabinet Office to undertake a study of the contribution which post offices make to their local communities, and how the network can best contribute to Government objectives.

  Concessionary Fuel
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the cost per tonne of fuel delivered of the retired miners' concessionary fuel scheme. [102394]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost per tonne of fuel delivered under the retired miners' concessionary fuel scheme varies considerably between different types of fuel and different parts of the country. The weighted average cost per tonne of fuel delivered between April 1999 and November 1999, including VAT at 5 per cent., was £160.00.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the(a) total cost of the retired miners' concessionary fuel scheme and (b) the total number of retired miners eligible for it, in the last quarter for which figures are available. [102400]

  Mrs. Liddell
  British Coal's former employees and their dependants are eligible to benefits under the retired miners' concessionary fuel scheme in two forms, solid fuel and cash in lieu of solid fuel. In the three months September to November 1999 the total cost of the scheme was:

  (a)

  £million

  Fuel

  14.7

  Cash in lieu

  5.4

  Total

  20.1

  The number of beneficiaries eligible was:

  (b)

  Number

  Fuel

  79,752

  Cash in lieu

  78,701

  Total

  158,453

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the level of entitlement to retired miners concessionary fuel for each of the client groups entitled to receive it. [102402]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The level of entitlement is set out in Fuel Agreements which were negotiated between British Coal (BC) and the various mining unions. The entitlements can be taken in either solid fuel or cash in lieu. The amount of solid fuel a former employee of BC, or their dependant, can receive each year varies according to the types of solid fuel, the householder status, age and location of the beneficiary.
  118W
  Typical entitlements for former industrial and clerical workers who are full householders are in the following ranges:

  Tonnes

  Housecoal

  5,000–5,100

  Anthracites

  4,100–5,000

  Manufactures smokeless fuels

  3,350–4,800

  The cash-in-lieu rates for these former grades is either £267 or £360 a year.

  ECGD
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the involvement of private finance in the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [102236]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Review of the Mission and Status of ECGD, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in the House on 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 305–06W, is still in progress and it is important not to pre-judge the outcome. Once Ministers have decided what ECGD's future functions and direction should be, we will start to consider how ECGD's services can best be delivered and whether any change in its status would be required. This will include an assessment of whether all, or any part, of ECGD's operations should be privatised or contracted out. ECGD does, of course, already work closely with the private sector by issuing guarantees to banks providing finance to UK
  exporters.

  Clothing Industry
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were employed in Britain's clothing industry(a) in each of the past 20 years, (b) in June 1997 and (c) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [102425]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The information is available in the table.

  Great Britain employee jobs—annual (June of each year)

  SIC(92)18 Wearing apparel

  1979

  297.0

  1980

  270.3

  1981

  234.7

  1982

  220.4

  1983

  212.7

  1984

  216.2

  1985

  218.3

  1986

  219.9

  1987

  217.1

  1988

  218.6

  1989

  210.3

  1990

  193.4

  1991

  159.1

  1992

  152.2

  1993

  154.1

  1994

  148.4

  1995

  144.5

  1996

  139.5

  1997

  138.3

  1998

  129.4

  1999

  107.7

  Notes

  1. Rounded to thousands

  2. Not seasonally adjusted
  119W

  Monthly data

  SIC(92)18

  Month and year

  Wearing apparel

  June 1997

  138.3

  September 1999

  104.3

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Diamond Project
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which staff grades at the(a) Daresbury Laboratory and (b) Rutherford Appleton Laboratory have been directly involved in the design of the Diamond project. [102717]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not possible to define staff positions at the Daresbury Laboratory who will have a key role in the design and construction of the synchrotron facility. The project is a partnership involving the Wellcome Trust and the French Government and the deployment of staff has not been agreed. We recognise the expertise of the CCLRC staff and they will be involved in all stages of the project as appropriate.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will define those staff positions at the Daresbury Laboratory which will have a key role in the design and construction of the Diamond project. [102718]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not practical to break down the effort by staff grades at the laboratories. The majority (greater than 99 per cent.) of the staff involved to date in the Diamond project are mobile grades based at the Daresbury Laboratory.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Starrs Case
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Advocate-General what estimate she has made of the additional costs expected for the legal system in Scotland as a result of the decision in the Starrs case. [101244]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have not made an estimate of these costs, as the matter does not fall within my responsibility. Administration of justice in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Temporary Sheriffs
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Advocate-General when she last met the Scottish Executive's Law Officers to discuss the implications of the European Court on human rights judgment relating to temporary sheriffs. [101246]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  The Question of temporary sheriffs has not been the subject of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. It has been the 120W
  subject of a judgment by the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. The matter is sub judice and it would not be appropriate to comment further.

  Devolution
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Advocate-General if she will make a statement on her functions and responsibilities relating to devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998. [101247]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Under the Scotland Act devolution issues are defined in Schedule 6. They relate to questions about the competence of Acts of the Scottish Parliament or things done by the Scottish Executive. For example they may be about compatibility with the Scotland Act itself, or with European Community Law or rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

  I have powers to bring or defend proceedings raising devolution issues in the Scottish Courts or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If other people raise devolution issues in court proceedings in Scotland they must give notice to the Advocate-General.

  The Advocate-General also, like the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General, has the right to refer Bills of the Scottish Parliament, before they are finally enacted, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council so that they can decide whether a Bill or any provision of it is competent. The main provisions are set out in Section 32, 33 and 34 of the Scotland Act 1998.

  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many occasions devolution issues have been raised with her since her appointment; and what matters were covered. [101248]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have received over 200 notices of devolution issues. All have concerned alleged incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Advocate-General what role she has had in assessing the legal implications of moves by the Scottish Parliament to abolish tuition fees in relation to the position of non-Scottish domiciled students. [101249]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  There is a long standing convention, followed by successive Governments, that neither the substance of Law Officers' advice, nor the fact that they have been consulted is disclosed outside Government. I see no reason for departure from that Convention on this occasion.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Advocate-General what recent discussions she has had with the Lord Advocate concerning matters relating to the implementation in Scotland of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [101250]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have given to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart),Official Report, column 138.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Westminster Hall
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the experiment of the House sitting in Westminster Hall. [101271]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The experiment began on 30 November, and it is too early to make a firm assessment. However, debates in Westminster Hall have been as lively and well attended as those in the Chamber, and the new forum already appears to offer Members increased opportunities for debate. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has agreed to"evaluate the experiment as a whole before the end of the session"
  as well as keeping a "watching brief' on proceedings.

  Modernisation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the modernisation of the procedures of the House which have been introduced since 1997. [101273]

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her plans to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [101276]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Forty-seven of the 54 recommendations of the Modernisation Committee directed at Government have already been implemented. The House has adopted a range of measures to improve the scrutiny of legislation; Thursday sittings have been brought forward; the scrutiny of European business has been reformed and sittings in Westminster Hall have begun.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the President of the Council what further plans she has for modernising the legislative process. [101278]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended, the Government are using a variety of procedures for legislation. We have had the first carryover of a public Bill and the use of a Special Standing Committee for the Asylum and Immigration Bill, we have published six Bills in draft and set up ad hoc Committees of this House and ad hoc joint Committees to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will take steps to establish a Select Committee on Iraq. [101274]

  Mr. Tipping
  We have no plans to do so. The Foreign Affairs Committee is already able to conduct inquiries into this.

  Nursery
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to develop a workplace nursery in the Palace of Westminster. [101275]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  None.
  122W
  The principal recommendations of the Administration Committee which commissioned the 1998 Childcare Facilities Survey of the House, have all been implemented. These include the running of a highly popular voucher scheme (£7 per day for a child under five) and advice to Members that they can use the Office Cost Allowance to help their employees with the costs of child care.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Holiday
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council what arrangements she has made for the functioning of Government over the millennium holiday period. [101277]

  Mr. Tipping
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman),Official Report, columns 148–49.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to establish a system of parliamentary debate on the exercise of executive functions by the Privy Council. [101279]

  Mr. Tipping
  There are no plans to introduce such a system.

  Millennium Compliance
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the impact of the United Kingdom's public information programme on the millennium bug. [101280]

  Mr. Tipping
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman),Official Report, column 147.

  Palace of Westminster
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what estimate he has made of the costs of maintaining and repairing the Palace of Westminster in the current financial year. [101266]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Repair and maintenance costs exclusively charged to the Palace of Westminster are forecast to be some £27 million this financial year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Shrewsbury County Court
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the progress made in refurbishing the Shrewsbury county court. [101256]
  123W
  Jane Kennedy
  Plans to refurbish Shrewsbury county court are now well advanced. The only matter, which remains to be resolved, is the arrangements for payment of the agreed contribution of £40,000 to the Court Service by the local authorities.

  McKenzie Friends
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding McKenzie friends. [101257]

  Mr. Lock
  I have received representations from Families Need Fathers, the Equal Parenting Party and from 10 Members of this House.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the total number of magistrates in England and Wales. [101258]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the oral answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson).

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what actions his Department is taking to ensure that the magistracy reflects the socio-economic balance of the community it serves. [101261]

  Jane Kennedy
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor requires his local Advisory Committees to do more than simply reflect the socio-economic balance of the community. He wishes to ensure that benches broadly reflect the communities they serve in terms of social background, gender, ethnic origin, geographical spread and occupation. Social background is currently defined in terms of political affiliation, which is unsatisfactory, and an alternative is being sought.

  E-commerce
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's Department's role in representing the United Kingdom in discussions on e-commerce. [101259]

  Mr. Lock
  E-commerce falls within the area of ministerial responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Various Departments, including the Lord Chancellor's Department, have interests in the policy implications of e-commerce and there has been full consultation and co-ordination between them.

  Trial Venue Appeals
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much judicial time in the Crown court the Government estimate will be taken up hearing appeals on the venue of trials. [101260]

  Jane Kennedy
  If defendants wish to test magistrates' decisions to try a case instead of sending it for jury trial, they will be able to lodge a written appeal in the Crown court. The judicial time needed to deal with these appeals in the Crown court is estimated to be 148 days a year.
  124W

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates courts there were in 1979; what the current figure is; and if he will make a statement. [101263]

  Jane Kennedy
  There were 435 magistrates courthouses, containing a total of 1,570 courtrooms, at 30 September 1999. There were 516 courthouses containing 1,735 courtrooms in September 1995. There are no earlier figures held centrally. Under the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, the provision of magistrates courthouse accommodation is a matter for the courts committee for the area concerned to determine, in conjunction with the local paying authority.

  Judicial Resource Allocation
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what account the Lord Chancellor takes of the views of the Council of Circuit Judges on proposed changes in the work of the courts. [101265]

  Jane Kennedy
  The views of Her Majesty's Council of Circuit Judges are sought on a wide range of policy and operational issues. Its responses receive the same careful consideration as those of other consultees.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent consultations he has had with the Council of Circuit Judges on efficient allocation of judicial resources. [101264]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Court Service meets regularly with representatives of the Council of Circuit Judges, most recently on 2 December. I understand that resources and allocations were discussed then.

  Criminal Courts
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have for a review of the criminal courts. [102975]

  Jane Kennedy
  My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, has appointed the right hon. Lord Justice Auld to conduct a review of the criminal courts. The terms of reference of the review are as follows:
  "An inquiry into the practices and procedures of, and the rules of evidence applied by, the criminal courts at every level, with a view to ensuring that they deliver justice fairly, by streamlining all their processes, increasing their efficiency and strengthening the effectiveness of their relationships with others across the whole of the criminal justice system, and having regard to the interests of all parties including the victims and witnesses, thereby promoting public confidence in the law".
  The review is expected to last for twelve months. Copies of the terms of reference of the review have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Justices of the Peace were appointed in England and Wales in the last 12 months; and how many were(a) from an ethnic minority background, (b) men and (c) women. [102404]
  125W
  Jane Kennedy
  In the 12 months ending 30 November 1999, 1,564 Justices of the Peace were appointed in England and Wales (including the Duchy of Lancaster) of whom 802 were men and 762 were women; 123 were from an ethnic minority background, 59 men and 64 women.

  Child Access
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the procedures for the enforcement of court orders relating to access by non-resident parents to their children; and if he will make a statement. [102242]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have no current plans to review the law in this area. The courts have their usual powers in relation to the enforcement of contact orders, including the powers to fine or imprison those who wilfully disobey or obstruct an order. However, in considering whether to use these powers in child contact cases, the courts rightly regard the best interests of the children as being their paramount concern. Consequently the courts are unlikely to fine or imprison a parent with whom a child is resident, for breaching a contact order, if they conclude that to do so would adversely affect the child concerned. Another possibility in cases where contact is denied would be for the non-resident parent to apply to the court for the residence of the child to be changed, but, again, the court would rightly regard the interests of the child as its paramount concern in determining such an application.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102361]

  Mr. Lock
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102325]

  Jane Kennedy
  This information is not collected or held centrally. If customers require specific facilities they can normally be supplied on a local basis.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions have taken place with the senior management of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors concerning the need for communication to all hon. Members on the progress regarding the backlog of outstanding cases, following the report of the Legal Services Ombudsman. [102720]

  Mr. Lock
  I met the President of the Law Society on 20 October when we discussed the position at the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. We also discussed the possibility of a meeting taking place at which all hon. Members could be advised as to the progress being made in respect of the timetable for improvements at the OSS. A meeting has now been arranged by my hon. Friend the 126W
  Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and will take place on 26 January 2000. Representatives from the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will be present at this meeting and will be able to discuss fully with Members the concerns about the progress being made with regard to the backlog of outstanding cases.

  Child Abduction
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals the Government have for changes to the laws preventing illegal abduction of children in tug-of-love cases, with reference to the Hague Convention and overseas courts' differing interpretation and with particular reference to decisions of the courts in Greece. [102719]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have no plans to amend the law in this way. The Government believe that the legal principles underlying the operation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention are generally satisfactory. It participates fully in the mechanisms for reviewing the operation of international conventions on child abduction, both internationally and bilaterally.

SCOTLAND

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the First Minister on prospects for inward investment for the manufacturing sector in Scotland. [101224]

  Dr. Reid
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide variety of topics. Inward investors have made an important contribution to the Scottish economy in recent years and I hope we will continue to attract them. It is an area in which Scotland benefits from both the UK effort and the distinctive Scottish dimension.

  Cabinet Sub-Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding proposals for the creation of Cabinet Sub-Committees with Ministers of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. [101226]

  Dr. Reid
  I represent Scottish interests in the Cabinet and its Committees. The Scottish Executive are not members of Cabinet Committees which decide the policy of the UK Government, but can work alongside UK Ministers in joint committees or in groups set up to look at particular issues. That is the kind of partnership which this Government can create, in the best interests of the whole UK.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the operation and staffing of the proposed joint ministerial sub-committees between the Scottish Executive and UK Departments. [101230]

  Dr. Reid
  The Joint Action Committees on Poverty and the Knowledge Economy will operate as functional committees of the Joint Ministerial Committee, details of which were set out in the Memorandum of Understanding published in October. The Secretariat will be drawn from each of the devolved Administrations,
  127W
  including Northern Ireland, the Cabinet Office, Treasury and DSS and DTI as appropriate. The first meeting of the Joint Action Committee on Poverty took place on Thursday 9 December.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Government proposals to introduce a UK-wide identity card scheme. [101227]

  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the Scottish Executive about the Memorandum of Understanding in relation to inward investment. [101228]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Memorandum of Understanding and the Concordat dealing with financial assistance for inward investment were discussed in detail with the Scottish Executive ahead of publication on 1 October.

  Rural Regional Assistance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he proposes to take to help those rural regions that will no longer receive aid from European structural funds under the new Objective 2 but which still require some form of assistance. [101229]

  Mr. Wilson
  The United Kingdom proposals submitted to the Commission focus on the areas of greater need.

  Areas no longer eligible under Objective 2 will receive the benefit of the transitional funding arrangements agreed at the Berlin Summit.

  Support under Objective 3 for training and the Rural Development Regulation will also be available in these areas as will other national and local programmes.

  Oban Coastguard
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he had with the First Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister prior to the announcement of the closure of the Oban coastguard station. [101231]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend is in regular contact with the First Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister on a wide range of issues including matters relating to maritime safety and coastguard stations.

  Oil Fabrication
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his liaison role in respect of the future of oil fabrication in the highlands and islands. [101232]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am, of course, extremely concerned about the impact of the job losses announced by Barmac, which I recently visited at the request of my hon. Friend, and the situation faced by all UK oil fabrication yards. These are issues being addressed by the Oil and Gas Industries Task Force, of which I am a member. As agreed at its meeting on 1 December, plans are already under 128W
  way for a group to meet as soon as possible to clarify how they can together best help the industry adapt to the changes in the market.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with the oil industry on the future of North sea oil fabrication contracts; and if he will make a statement. [101234]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am a member of the Oil and Gas Industries Task Force, which includes industry representatives. The Task Force last met on 1 December. I also met representatives of the management and unions at Barmac last week.

  I also refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart).

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive and the Treasury regarding future assistance for fabrication yards in the north of Scotland. [101241]

  Mr. Wilson
  I am a member of the Oil and Gas Industries Task Force which includes representatives from industry, trade unions, Government and the Scottish Executive. The Task Force is considering the issues being faced by all UK oil fabrication yards. I have recently visited the Barmac yard at Ardersier where I had useful discussions with the management and trade unions, along with Ministers from the Scottish Executive.

  Ministerial Briefing
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from which budgets briefing for Scottish Executive Ministers provided by United Kingdom Departments is paid for. [101233]

  Dr. Reid
  Extensive and balanced two-way exchange of information takes place continuously between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding and the associated concordats. No reimbursements are sought for the limited costs associated with providing briefing for another Administration. The costs of setting up such a system would outweigh any minimal benefits.

  Electricity
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future regulation of the generation and supply of electricity in Scotland. [101235]

  Mr. Wilson
  Regulation of the electricity industry is a matter for the Director General of Gas and Electricity Supply. As part of the utility reform Bill, which was announced in the Queen's speech last month, the role of the regulator will be revised to put consumers at the heart of the regulatory process.

  Defence Procurement
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the Scottish economy of the UK Government's defence procurement policies. [101236]
  129W
  Dr. Reid
  On the basis of the most recent figures available, defence expenditure in Scotland at approximately £1.9 billion supports, directly and indirectly, some 55,000 jobs. Clearly defence expenditure is both substantial and important to the Scottish
  economy.

  Pre-Budget Statement
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the impact in Scotland of his pre-Budget statement. [101237]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend's pre-Budget Report contained significant new measures which will further assist Scotland's economy and improve employment opportunities and social justice. I welcome the benefit for Scotland from these and other measures announced by my right hon. Friend, including proposals for changes to the fuel duty regime and for consultation on the Air Passenger Duty.

  New Deal
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to extend the new deal to the over-40s. [101238]

  Mr. Wilson
  New Deal 50 Plus pathfinders commenced in October and will be rolled out across the whole country in April 2000. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget Report announced a package of measures to improve significantly New Deal 25 Plus.

  Border Communities
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about ensuring the establishment of procedures for the co-ordination of policy and its implementation affecting communities on the English/Scottish
  border. [101239]

  Dr. Reid
  I regularly discuss a range of matters with the First Minister. Liaison arrangements established under the Memorandum of Understanding apply to all matters where co-ordination between the Administrations is sensible.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Scottish Executive regarding its review of higher education policy. [101240]

  Dr. Reid
  The Scottish Executive is not reviewing higher education policy.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with the First Minister on co-ordination of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [101242]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend meets regularly with the First Minister and discusses a range of topics. The Government's anti-drugs strategy is on the agenda for their next meeting.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with HM Treasury on the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit in Scotland. [101225]

  Dr. Reid
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, which could benefit up to 140,000 families in Scotland.

  Barnett Formula
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Treasury about the operation of the Barnett formula; and if he will make a statement. [101218]

  Dr. Reid
  I have had no discussions with the Treasury about the Barnett formula. The formula continues to provide a fair deal for Scotland within a United Kingdom framework and I have no plans to re-visit the underlying principles.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Solicitor-General what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102364]

  The Solicitor-General
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussions.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burundi
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on conditions in Burundi and the humanitarian response of the international community. [101523]

  Clare Short
  The UN estimates that over 800,000 people are currently internally displaced inside Burundi. This figure includes around 300,000 people forcibly regrouped into sites around the capital, Bujumbura, since September 1999. In addition, approximately 300,000 Burundians still live in neighbouring countries (mainly Tanzania) as refugees.

  UN humanitarian operations in Burundi have been suspended since the killing of UN staff on 12 October. It is intended that humanitarian activities will resume as soon as effective security measures are assured.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for each of the buildings under her Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102336]
  131W
  Clare Short
  One room in 94 Victoria Street and four rooms in Abercrombie House, East Kilbride are set aside for smokers. No rooms are allocated exclusively for religious or nursing mothers use although a rest room in 94 Victoria Street is available for these purposes as required.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what arrangements(a) she and (b) Ministers in her Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside her Department. [102371]

  Clare Short
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidelines determine the prominence or otherwise of sponsors branding within the Millennium Dome. [99319]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: On 17 December 1998, my right hon. Friend the then Minister without Portfolio placed in the House Libraries the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) "Outline Approach to Official Sponsors of the Dome". This document made clear that the NMEC at all times retains the ultimate right of control over the design, content and format of the exhibit zones in order to protect and maintain the integrity of the Millennium Experience and the company. This underpins NMEC's approach to sponsor branding and to the branding guidelines adopted and applied by NMEC. I have placed in the Libraries today a copy of NMEC's summary pamphlet "Sponsor Identity and branding related to zones" as an example of the company's approach.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many sponsors of the Millennium Dome have yet to sign binding contracts in respect of their announced sponsorship. [99339]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: Final contractual documents for seven of the Millennium Experience's announced sponsors await signature. All issues of substance have been resolved and, subject to completion of formalities, the New Millennium Experience Company expects the documentation to be signed over the next couple of weeks. All remain fully committed at Board level. The sponsors concerned are BSkyB, which is a particularly complex agreement covering their sponsorship of Skyscape and a wide range of broadcast issues; Boots; Manpower; the Corporation of London (who as an indication of their commitment have made an advance payment of their sponsorship); Coca Cola; Mars Confectionary; and Thames Water.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent to date on promoting the sale of the Millennium Dome to potential purchasers; and what form these promotions are taking. [101617]
  132W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: The competition to find a sustainable use for the Dome beyond the Millennium Experience is being managed on behalf of the Government by English Partnerships, the urban regeneration agency for England, in co-operation with the New Millennium Experience Company. Total spend to date on all aspects of the competition is £474,000. Promotion has taken the form of initial advertising; detailed information for potential bidders; and the public display of outline proposals.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many overseas visitors his Department estimates will visit Britain in 2000 for the main purpose of visiting the Millennium Dome; [101626]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the number of overseas visitors who will visit the Millennium Dome in 2000. [101643]

  Janet Anderson
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) has estimated the number of overseas visits to the UK in 2000 as 27.5 million. Of these NMEC foresee that 2.5 million will visit the Dome. The BTA has also suggested that as a direct result of the Millennium Experience an additional £300 million to £500 million of overseas tourist revenue will be brought into the UK economy. The "halo" effect could double this figure. The BTA have further estimated that 15,000–30,000 new tourism related jobs will be created.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of the impact of a digital television licence fee on the take-up of digital television services; [102416]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of a digital television licence fee on levels of commercial investment in digital television technology; [102415]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of a digital television licence fee on the receipts from the sale of analogue broadcasting spectrum; [102410]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect of a digital television licence fee on levels of commercial investment in digital television technology; [102414]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the effect of a flat rate digital television licence fee on the effectiveness of Government policies to encourage social inclusion; [102413]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the effect of a digital television licence fee on the proposed date for analogue switch off; [102412]

  (7) what assessment he has made of the effect of a digital television licence fee on receipts from the sale of analogue broadcasting spectrum. [102411]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Government will consider all the arguments for and against a digital licence supplement, including the responses to the public consultation and the wider policy implications, before reaching any decision on the recommendation of the Davies report. We shall announce our conclusions in January.

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the total workforce in his Department is registered as disabled; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of disabled people in his Department. [102046]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Four per cent. of my Department's workforce have declared themselves as having a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. My Department has taken a number of steps to encourage the employment of disabled people. All buildings occupied by DCMS staff are accessible to people with disabilities; all disabled job applicants who meet the necessary criteria are offered an interview; flexible working is available; guidance on working with disabled people has recently been issued to all staff; and hearing induction loops will shortly be installed in meeting rooms.

  Television Licences (Over-75s)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if pensioners aged over 75 years who have already paid for a television licence will get a full refund of the unused part when the policy of free television licences for those aged over 75 years is implemented. [102123]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government anticipate that the scheme will incorporate arrangements for refunds in respect of unexpired licences. We intend to announce shortly full details of how the scheme will operate.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probation Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to change the title of probation officers; and if he will make a statement; [102664]

  (2) what the reasons were for changing the name of the Probation Service; and if he will make a statement; [102663]

  (3) if he will list the organisations and individuals consulted on the name change of the Probation Service, and place their responses in the Library; [102666]

  (4) if he will list the options considered for the new name of the Probation Service; [102665]

  (5) if the Government evaluated the name, community justice service, as a replacement for the Probation Service. [102668]

  Mr. Boateng
  This Government are determined that punishment and rehabilitation of offenders in the community should be effective. We have embarked upon a major programme of modernisation that includes significant investment in programmes that are shown to work in reducing reoffending and revised National Standards for the Supervision of Offenders in the Community.

  Bringing together the 54 probation services in England and Wales into a unified service organised in 42 areas sharing police and Crown Prosecution Service boundaries,
  134W
  as we shall do through the Crime and Public Protection Bill, is another major part of that modernisation programme. It is right that the name of the new service should reflect its main purpose—punishment and rehabilitation of offenders in order to reduce reoffending and protect the public. The Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Service is, therefore, accurate and appropriate.

  The consultation paper "Joining Forces to Protect the Public" invited suggestions for the name of a unified service. A list of the suggestions received is in the second list. Community Justice Service was one of those suggestions. Details of those who were sent copies of the consultation paper (excluding in response to requests for it from members of the public) are in the first list. It would not be right to make the responses to the consultation paper public as some of these were submitted in confidence.

  We are currently considering new titles for probation officers and other staff. Changes will be made in the Crime and Public Protection Bill.

  Organisations and persons sent copies of "Joining Forces to Protect the Public"

  Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Central Probation Council

  Chief Constables

  Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates

  Council of Circuit Judges

  Government Officers for the Regions

  HM Inspectorate of Probation

  Judicial Studies Board

  Justices' Clerks' Society

  Lord Chief Justice

  Magistrates' Association

  Magistrates' Courts' Committees

  NACRO

  National Association of Probation Officers

  Other Government Departments

  Parliament

  Probation Committees

  Probation Managers' Association

  Probation Services

  The Press

  UNISON

  Names suggested for a unified service

  Bureau of Community Punishment

  Community Corrections and Protection Service

  Community Corrections Service

  Community Justice Agency

  Community Justice Enforcement Agency

  Community Justice Enforcement Service/Agency

  Community Justice Service

  Community Offender Bureau for Rehabilitation Action

  Community Protection and Justice Service

  Community Punishment and Re-education Service

  Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Service

  135W

  Community Sanction Service

  Community Sentence Enforcement Agency

  Community Sentence Enforcement Service

  Community Sentence Supervisory Agency

  Correction Service

  Corrections Service

  Court Advice and Sentence Implementation Service

  Court Enforcement Service

  Court Order Enforcement Agency

  Department of Community Punishment

  Justice Enforcement Agency

  Justice Enforcement and Public Protection Service

  National Resettlement Service

  Offender Control and Supervision Service

  Offender Control Service

  Offender Correction Service

  Offender Management Service

  Offender Monitoring Service

  Offender Risk Management Service

  Offender Supervision and Control

  Offender Supervision Service

  Offending Behaviour Correction Service

  Probation Agency

  Probation and Public Protection Service

  Probation Service

  Public Protection Service

  Public Safety and Offender Management Service

  Punishment and Rehabilitation Service

  Remand Service

  Sentence Enforcement

  Sentence Enforcement Agency

  Sentence Enforcement and Rehabilitation Agency.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the restrictions on who can be employed in probation work; and if he will make a statement. [102667]

  Mr. Boateng
  At present there are no centrally laid down restrictions on who can be employed in probation work. This is a matter for individual probation areas and I have no plans to introduce any restrictions on employment in the forthcoming legislation.

  Prison Education Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total amount spent on prison education services in each Prison Service establishment and in total in(a) 1999 to date, (b) 1998, (c) 1997 and (d) 1992; and if he will make a statement; [102660]

  (2) what was the total amount spent on prison education services in each young offender institution and in total in (a) 1999 to date, (b) 1998, (c) 1997 and (d) 1992; and if he will make a statement. [102657]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available in the form requested. The tables set out actual annual expenditure for all prison establishments and for young offender institutions (including remand centres) on certain separately identifiable areas of education spend covering payments to education service providers and purchase of 136W
  education materials divided by the average population for each prison in that year. These cover the years 1999–2000 (to 31 October), 1998–99, and 1997–98. Information for 1992–93 is not readily available. Information on education costs at private sector prisons is also not readily available.

  £

  Establishment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000 to end of October

  Acklington

  221,254

  229,400

  199,237

  Albany

  154,493

  172,037

  108,310

  Aldington

  131,901

  131,333

  51,158

  Ashwell

  333,097

  359,680

  224,277

  Askham Grange

  128,121

  142,894

  95,290

  Aylesbury

  414,477

  522,455

  385,827

  Bedford

  200,861

  204,989

  164,938

  Belmarsh

  416,002

  440,854

  313,102

  Birmingham

  198,933

  199,999

  167,562

  Blantyre House

  180,387

  159,433

  95,215

  Blundeston

  242,056

  244,169

  162,173

  Brinsford

  169,250

  242,237

  147,643

  Bristol

  163,168

  153,388

  108,675

  Brixton

  439,283

  312,580

  263,594

  Brockhill

  160,306

  174,391

  86,789

  Bullingdon

  484,710

  512,312

  359,718

  Bullwood Hall

  205,394

  233,355

  161,932

  Camp Hill

  358,715

  352,129

  183,083

  Canterbury

  150,460

  134,907

  86,726

  Cardiff

  183,070

  212,610

  125,973

  Castington

  241,468

  256,167

  206,893

  Channings Wood

  361,684

  361,226

  211,608

  Chelmsford

  166,412

  185,244

  138,894

  Coldingley

  160,373

  191,468

  114,155

  Cookham Wood

  132,886

  131,159

  83,003

  Dartmoor

  366,781

  426,377

  168,838

  Deerbolt

  326,118

  422,119

  310,883

  Dorchester

  97,718

  130,048

  95,483

  Dover

  151,139

  157,403

  148,926

  Downview

  219,615

  206,700

  109,652

  Drake Hall

  159,664

  156,929

  114,351

  Durham

  353,434

  355,476

  228,092

  East Sutton Park

  93,798

  85,966

  62,812

  Eastwood Park

  175,309

  226,694

  120,716

  Elmley

  255,479

  391,782

  312,174

  Erlestoke

  298,786

  309,072

  205,745

  Everthorpe

  437,524

  443,146

  194,167

  Exeter

  129,686

  154,440

  122,007

  Featherstone

  175,085

  181,350

  151,311

  Feltham

  467,272

  592,115

  358,133

  Ford

  275,237

  260,074

  159,879

  Foston Hall

  136,026

  230,688

  119,968

  Frankland

  272,614

  350,257

  216,084

  Full Sutton

  474,483

  467,432

  239,168

  Garth

  387,834

  423,618

  245,984

  Gartree

  216,308

  208,846

  122,052

  Glen Parva

  439,155

  553,878

  293,217

  Gloucester

  208,983

  252,051

  153,048

  Grendon

  347,897

  393,318

  270,834

  Guys Marsh

  258,675

  359,457

  210,523

  Haslar

  120,566

  136,942

  60,333

  Hatfield

  225,136

  224,478

  116,568

  Haverigg

  300,190

  275,718

  135,661

  Hewell Grange

  151,917

  153,081

  100,319

  High Down

  331,519

  407,265

  242,351

  Highpoint

  506,037

  578,123

  389,826

  Hindley

  727,324

  624,206

  413,931

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  355,017

  359,530

  235,191

  Holloway

  378,720

  433,770

  332,554

  Holme House

  572,000

  382,409

  186,966

  Hull

  339,918

  375,372

  164,391

  Huntercombe

  317,543

  402,591

  336,490

  137W

  £

  Establishment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000 to end of October

  Kingston

  89,433

  106,748

  50,851

  Kirkham

  231,985

  242,505

  134,998

  Kirklevington Grange

  55,254

  36,554

  17,678

  Lancaster Castle

  164,931

  171,845

  106,153

  Lancaster Farms

  458,279

  564,437

  402,644

  Latchmere House

  19,200

  18,524

  8,428

  Leeds

  423,071

  551,235

  328,781

  Leicester

  196,154

  201,636

  172,787

  Lewes

  273,268

  276,099

  188,021

  Leyhill

  245,758

  241,674

  116,171

  Lincoln

  223,010

  220,840

  132,742

  Lindholme

  420,619

  445,630

  297,259

  Littlehey

  421,407

  395,780

  172,366

  Liverpool

  332,483

  365,870

  234,861

  Long Lartin

  231,556

  200,300

  138,474

  Low Newton

  344,571

  360,377

  135,473

  Maidstone

  203,762

  195,777

  138,528

  Manchester

  469,093

  557,039

  223,562

  Moorland

  690,263

  829,616

  468,568

  Morton Hall

  188,281

  191,851

  115,799

  Mount (The)

  363,039

  377,489

  279,844

  New Hall

  301,792

  376,651

  203,357

  North Sea Camp

  127,629

  126,023

  81,582

  Northallerton

  236,165

  279,352

  182,637

  Norwich

  394,551

  417,911

  316,118

  Nottingham

  257,487

  250,387

  177,782

  Onley

  455,448

  570,060

  306,998

  Parkhurst

  223,022

  253,595

  180,810

  Pentonville

  264,547

  318,295

  271,181

  Portland

  443,838

  500,700

  318,067

  Preston

  239,086

  265,367

  170,935

  Ranby

  371,069

  410,498

  263,056

  Reading

  142,489

  136,296

  124,992

  Risley

  570,694

  593,435

  337,621

  Rochester

  148,332

  190,179

  135,930

  Send

  140,706

  126,692

  89,383

  Shepton Mallet

  205,271

  184,749

  136,760

  Shrewsbury

  114,680

  121,260

  89,901

  Stafford

  281,778

  261,845

  230,618

  Standford Hill

  195,736

  204,993

  1262,884

  Stocken

  354,972

  393,849

  224,106

  Stoke Heath

  293,701

  482,394

  321,126

  Styal

  232,578

  277,910

  202,514

  Sudbury

  382,181

  399,954

  200,014

  Swaleside

  328,888

  351,168

  203,923

  Swansea

  143,054

  130,088

  106,189

  Swinfen Hall

  211,735

  331,556

  200,430

  Thorn Cross

  484,351

  511,470

  244,581

  Usk/Prescoed

  375,878

  362,278

  212,426

  Verne (The)

  218,575

  211,964

  125,213

  Wakefield

  341,074

  359,617

  210,409

  Wandsworth

  224,312

  226,969

  203,016

  Wayland

  424,069

  413,968

  273,951

  Wealstun

  373,096

  343,721

  204,275

  Weare (The)

  161,013

  318,446

  185,086

  Wellingborough

  221,572

  227,327

  184,518

  Werrington

  190,633

  201,345

  122,702

  Wetherby

  433,918

  497.377

  302,467

  Whatton

  304,132

  298,068

  225,381

  Whitemoor

  400,114

  432,700

  265,858

  Winchester

  306,592

  323,249

  186,364

  Woodhill

  490,961

  486,963

  367,588

  Wormwood Scrubs

  289,530

  280,952

  181,718

  Wymott

  405,685

  399,012

  259,746

  Total

  35,801,619

  38,755,594

  24,551,604

  138W

  £

  Young Offender Establishment

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999-2000 to end of October

  Aylesbury

  414,477

  522,455

  385,827

  Brinsford

  169,250

  242,237

  147,643

  Castington

  241,468

  256,167

  206,893

  Deerbolt

  326,118

  422,119

  310,883

  Dover

  151,139

  157,403

  148,926

  Feltham

  467,272

  592,115

  358,133

  Glen Parva

  439,155

  553,878

  293,217

  Guys Marsh

  258,675

  359,457

  210,523

  Hatfield

  225,136

  224,478

  116,568

  Hindley

  727,324

  624,206

  413,931

  Huntercombe

  317,543

  402,591

  336,490

  Lancaster Farms

  458,279

  564,437

  402,644

  Northallerton

  236,165

  279,352

  182,637

  Onley

  455,448

  570,060

  306,998

  Portland

  443,838

  500,700

  318,067

  Reading

  142,489

  136,296

  124,992

  Stoke Heath

  293,701

  482,394

  321,126

  Swinfen Hall

  211,735

  331,556

  200,430

  Thorn Cross

  484,351

  511,470

  244,581

  Werrington

  190,633

  201,345

  122,702

  Wetherby

  433,918

  497,377

  302,467

  Total

  7,088,114

  8,432,092

  5,455,678

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that a statement of compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights is made by Ministers in all secondary legislation; and if he will make a statement. [102654]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government have decided that, from the beginning of the current session, a Minister inviting Parliament to approve a draft statutory instrument or statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution should always volunteer his or her view regarding its compatibility with the Convention rights. The Minister's view should also always be given regarding the incompatibility of any secondary legislation to the extent that it amends primary legislation; and that statement should be made in writing where the secondary legislation which amends primary legislation is not subject to affirmative resolution. The written statement should be made in whatever form seems appropriate, for example, in a letter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy for Departments to publish their assessments of the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on all proposed new legislation; and if he will make a statement. [102670]

  Mr. Straw
  Under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Minister responsible for a Bill must certify in full whether or not in his or her view the Bill is compatible with the provisions of the Act. This section is already in force. In addition, the Government now have decided that a Minister in charge of a Bill should be ready in debate to explain his or her thinking on the compatibility of particular provisions of the Bill with the Convention rights. The Minister should be ready to give a general outline of the arguments which led him or
  139W
  her to the conclusion reflected in the statement made under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the particular provision.

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 125W, on trial by jury, if he will give a full breakdown of where the estimated savings to the criminal justice system from the Government's proposals to limit the right of defendants to elect for jury trial will be made, including savings to (a) the courts and (b) the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [102649]

  Mr. Straw
  For the courts, there would be annual resource savings of £12 million on committals and £36 million on Crown Court trials which would no longer take place. This would be offset by the cost of magistrates courts trials (£8 million, including the cost of any subsequent committals for sentence), and the cost (estimated at £0.5 million) of interlocutory appeals to the Crown Court. Resource savings for the Prison Service, estimated at £66 million annually, would result from the shorter custodial sentences imposed by magistrates courts.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 244W, concerning jury trials, if the material requested has been prepared; and if he will make a statement. [102650]

  Mr. Straw
  The available information, drawn from two sources, is given in the table:

  Defendants proceeded against for triable either way offences, 1989–98

  Year

  Number of defendants convicted or acquitted following summary trial1

  Number of defendants committals for trial1

  Percentage of committed for trial resulting from defendants' elections2

  1989

  270,695

  81,973

  42

  1990

  277,916

  82,026

  39

  1991

  277,407

  82,643

  36

  1992

  267,341

  74,902

  37

  1993

  257,955

  66,643

  35

  1994

  263,041

  69,528

  35

  1995

  244,877

  61,133

  33

  1996

  243,860

  61,215

  32

  1997

  258,393

  66,456

  28

  1998

  291,785

  51,952

  28

  1Source: Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  2CPS prosecutions only. Source: Crown Prosecution Service statistics.

  Quantum Project
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the outcome of the Invitation to Tender for the Prison Service's Quantum Project. [102974]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Invitation to Tender for the Quantum Project, for an information technology infrastructure service, joint development of a strategy for information technology-based business change and an agreed mechanism for implementing business change on 140W
  a partnership basis, was issued on 25 September. The short-listed companies provided their submissions in response to the Invitation to Tender on 8 November.

  Following thorough evaluation against commercial and, separately, qualitative criteria, Martin Narey, Director General of the Prison Service, has selected the tender of Electronic Data Systems (EDS) as the one which is the most economically advantageous to the Prison Service based on the best combination of deliverability, quality, risk transfer and cost. The Prison Service and EDS will now commence preferred supplier negotiations with a view to award of contract.

  Kosovar Refugees
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Kosovar refugees are currently in the UK; and, of those, how many(a) are seeking and (b) have been granted asylum. [101961]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is estimated that as at the end of March 1999, the latest date for which detailed figures are available, the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision for nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was 9,540.

  In the period January 1997 to May 1999 a total of 5,190 nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were recognised as refugees and granted asylum. A further 905 were not recognised as refugees but granted exceptional leave to enter or remain.

  I regret that it is not possible to identify Kosovars separately within the available statistics for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  4,346 Kosovars arrived in the United Kingdom under the United Nations High Commission for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) between 25 April and 25 June with a further 68 arrivals on subsequent medical flights. As at 2 December 1999, 1,319 Kosovars (including 25 per cent. of those evacuated under the HEP) had returned voluntarily.

  Drug Testing (Animals)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the use of animals in drug testing, with particular reference to those used in anxiety models for drugs; and if he will make a statement. [102252]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The use of animals in drug testing Is kept under review and each project licence application is considered on its individual merits. Licences are issued only after the likely benefits (to man, animals or the environment) have been weighed against the costs to the animals involved and if there are no alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the experimental design to minimise suffering. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate advises on whether, and on what terms, licences and certificates should be granted or amended.

  Various licences have been granted in the United Kingdom to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical agents or study the mechanisms of addiction but none can be described as models for lifestyle drugs.

  Prison Service Drug Strategy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 239W, on the Prison Service drug strategy, if he will list those Prison Service establishments where CARAT services are available; if he will list the expected dates for the roll-out of services to those Prison Service establishments where roll-out is not complete; and if he will make a statement. [102651]

  Mr. Boateng
  The roll-out of Counselling Assessment Referral Advice Throughcare services in each prison will be completed by the end of January.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 239W, on the Prison Service drug strategy, how many staff have been recruited per Prison Service establishment and in total; how many vacancies there are to fill per establishment and in total; and if he will make a statement. [102652]

  Mr. Boateng
  Approximately 200 new members of staff have been recruited to support Counselling Assessment Referral Advice Throughcare services. Information on the number of workers recruited per establishment and on the number of vacancies to be filled per establishment is not held centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate the Prison Service has made of the total cost over three years of the Prison Service CARAT drug strategy; what is the breakdown of the estimate; and if he will make a statement. [102653]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 26 November 1999,Official Report, column 239W.

  Prisoners (Purposeful Activity)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of hours of purposeful activity by each prisoner in each week in each Prison Service establishment and in total in(a) 1999 to date, (b) 1998, (c) 1997 and (d) 1992; and if he will make a statement. [102659]

  Mr. Boateng
  The average weekly number of purposeful activity hours per prisoner for each establishment and in total for the financial years in question are given in the table.

  The table excludes establishments where data for the complete period are not available.

  Purposeful activity 1992–93,1997–98,1998–99, April 1999–October 1999

  Prison name

  1992–93

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Acklington

  26.3

  25.5

  23.8

  23.9

  Albany

  —

  24.0

  23.8

  23.7

  Aldington

  33.0

  30.4

  28.1

  26.7

  Altcourse

  32.8

  —

  20.5

  24.8

  Ashwell

  —

  32.6

  33.3

  31.3

  Askham Grange

  22.4

  41.8

  42.0

  39.8

  Aylesbury

  20.3

  22.6

  20.9

  18.2

  Bedford

  14.0

  25.6

  22.7

  22.9

  Belmarsh

  16.3

  11.8

  13.2

  12.5

  Birmingham

  —

  10.9

  13.3

  14.7

  Blakenhurst

  29.9

  20.1

  21.8

  22.1

  142W

  Purposeful activity 1992–93, 1997–98, 1998–99, April 1999-October
  1999

  Prison name

  1992–93

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Blantyre House

  21.2

  34.2

  39.6

  41.7

  Blundeston

  17.2

  23.2

  25.8

  24.9

  Brinsford

  20.2

  15.3

  16.3

  17.3

  Bristol

  10.6

  20.1

  21.3

  20.2

  Brixton

  —

  17.1

  15.7

  9.1

  Brockhill

  19.2

  30.7

  21.1

  16.5

  Buckley Hall

  —

  32.8

  26.6

  31.2

  Bullingdon

  19.5

  20.9

  21.2

  14.6

  Bullwood Hall

  25.6

  21.6

  19.1

  20.3

  Camp Hill

  24.8

  20.9

  19.3

  18.9

  Canterbury

  21.0

  17.5

  18.5

  18.8

  Cardiff

  22.8

  22.0

  21.3

  20.6

  Castington

  26.1

  23.4

  20.7

  19.8

  Channings Wood

  16.7

  29.6

  30.5

  34.0

  Chelmsford

  28.5

  16.0

  15.8

  16.2

  Coldingly

  26.2

  38.1

  40.7

  42.3

  Cookham Wood

  20.4

  23.6

  22.3

  24.5

  Dartmoor

  24.3

  18.8

  18.9

  20.8

  Deerbolt

  20.9

  21.7

  19.9

  20.8

  Doncaster

  —

  16.7

  17.0

  18.5

  Dorchester

  25.7

  16.2

  14.4

  14.6

  Dover

  25.3

  21.7

  21.2

  23.4

  Downview

  37.9

  31.5

  30.8

  29.8

  Drake Hall

  13.5

  35.1

  34.9

  35.8

  Durham

  36.2

  16.7

  20.2

  19.1

  East Sutton Park

  —

  38.4

  40.1

  41.4

  Eastwood Park

  —

  19.7

  21.6

  21.4

  Elmley

  26.6

  19.0

  20.2

  20.7

  Erlestoke

  23.8

  29.0

  27.2

  29.2

  Everthorpe

  —

  25.8

  27.0

  27.0

  Exeter

  30.2

  17.9

  13.6

  12.4

  Featherstone

  11.0

  23.7

  24.7

  26.1

  Feltham

  35.9

  19.6

  15.5

  15.2

  Ford

  21.8

  33.7

  35.6

  39.6

  Foston Hall

  —

  —

  23.4

  25.4

  Frankland

  20.4

  17.0

  18.4

  19.6

  Full Sutton

  20.8

  18.0

  17.6

  21.5

  Garth

  29.5

  21.0

  21.3

  21.3

  Gartree

  —

  26.5

  27.0

  28.1

  Glen Parva

  15.8

  16.5

  16.7

  16.8

  Gloucester

  25.3

  20.6

  26.4

  29.5

  Grendon

  39.9

  33.3

  34.2

  34.7

  Guys Marsh

  25.5

  30.9

  22.8

  26.8

  Haslar

  36.9

  21.4

  18.8

  19.0

  Hatfield

  34.2

  37.2

  32.5

  41.0

  Haverigg

  40.5

  33.8

  33.9

  34.1

  Hewell Grange

  24.5

  41.2

  42.7

  41.5

  Highdown

  —

  15.7

  13.9

  16.0

  Highpoint

  17.4

  17.7

  23.2

  21.8

  Hindley

  28.4

  20.1

  23.8

  23.2

  Hollesley Bay

  20.2

  28.1

  28.1

  33.8

  Holloway

  17.8

  18.7

  17.6

  10.2

  Holme House

  —

  16.0

  15.8

  16.4

  Hull

  21.4

  18.6

  20.0

  21.9

  Huntercombe

  25.7

  25.1

  23.8

  25.5

  Kingston

  44.7

  28.6

  23.9

  23.5

  Kirkham

  —

  54.8

  43.5

  43.8

  Kirklevington

  26.7

  48.8

  50.1

  52.1

  Lancaster

  21.9

  22.8

  20.7

  21.6

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  22.4

  20.5

  20.2

  Latchmere House

  16.4

  72.7

  70.2

  76.5

  Leeds

  18.2

  15.5

  14.8

  14.0

  Leicester

  14.1

  21.4

  20.5

  19.7

  Lewes

  41.0

  18.5

  18.5

  17.8

  Leyhill

  22.7

  38.6

  39.0

  38.5

  Lincoln

  23.6

  19.6

  22.9

  24.7

  Lindholme

  28.0

  25.3

  24.2

  26.7

  Littlehey

  18.2

  29.8

  26.0

  25.9

  Liverpool

  19.9

  16.5

  19.0

  22.5

  Long Lartin

  19.6

  15.6

  17.0

  16.4

  Low Newton

  19.1

  21.7

  20.2

  23.9

  Lowdham Grange

  —

  —

  25.2

  25.4

  143W

  Purposeful activity 1992–93,1997–98,1998–99, April 1999-October 1999

  Prison name

  1992–93

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Maidstone

  17.6

  22.5

  21.3

  22.8

  Manchester

  19.6

  29.4

  26.7

  22.9

  Moorland

  41.8

  25.3

  24.0

  22.8

  Morton Hall

  27.1

  39.1

  37.9

  41.7

  Mount

  33.2

  18.4

  18.0

  19.1

  New Hall

  —

  22.9

  23.7

  23.1

  North Sea Camp

  25.8

  42.4

  45.0

  41.7

  Northallerton

  22.5

  14.7

  14.5

  14.9

  Norwich

  24.9

  18.1

  18.0

  18.2

  Nottingham

  24.3

  18.1

  15.3

  20.6

  Onley

  20.4

  20.0

  18.4

  17.5

  Parc

  —

  —

  30.0

  46.7

  Parkhurst

  20.7

  20.1

  19.5

  20.8

  Pentonville

  23.8

  19.6

  20.3

  19.9

  Portland

  19.1

  29.4

  23.1

  23.0

  Preston

  —

  17.4

  17.1

  15.9

  Ranby

  22.0

  30.2

  26.4

  25.7

  Reading

  26.5

  24.2

  23.8

  29.5

  Risley

  22.8

  22.7

  21.9

  22.5

  Rochester

  33.9

  18.7

  19.1

  17.8

  Send

  24.2

  35.1

  40.7

  33.5

  Shepton Mallet

  20.2

  23.7

  22.7

  20.7

  Shrewsbury

  17.8

  21.4

  22.7

  22.6

  Stafford

  38.0

  25.0

  22.4

  23.6

  Standford Hill

  29.6

  43.8

  44.1

  39.5

  Stocken

  27.7

  27.1

  23.2

  22.2

  Stoke Heath

  29.8

  21.6

  21.6

  22.2

  Styal

  46.0

  28.6

  28.7

  16.9

  Sudbury

  21.1

  47.2

  44.5

  43.9

  Swaleside

  18.8

  22.0

  22.3

  22.4

  Swansea

  31.2

  15.0

  20.0

  20.6

  Swinfen Hall

  41.2

  25.5

  28.9

  30.5

  Thorn Cross

  31.5

  50.3

  50.3

  46.2

  Usk

  28.4

  35.5

  34.9

  37.3

  Verne

  19.1

  30.9

  27.2

  32.7

  Wakefield

  17.0

  17.8

  18.2

  20.2

  Wandsworth

  26.3

  22.0

  18.9

  17.6

  Wayland

  36.7

  24.6

  24.0

  24.5

  Wealstun

  28.2

  33.7

  30.6

  33.4

  Weare

  —

  —

  20.8

  21.0

  Wellinborough

  41.4

  25.1

  24.9

  25.5

  Werrington

  33.0

  36.5

  24.0

  37.1

  Wetherby

  33.1

  29.5

  28.3

  27.7

  Whatton

  13.7

  30.6

  28.8

  30.1

  Whitemoor

  22.3

  18.5

  19.6

  21.5

  Winchester

  —

  17.2

  15.7

  15.6

  Wolds

  —

  31.0

  29.1

  29.4

  Woodhill

  14.8

  20.9

  19.8

  17.7

  Wormwood Scrubs

  28.6

  13.6

  14.2

  17.2

  Wymott

  —

  34.4

  28.7

  30.3

  Service purposeful activity

  Purposeful activity

  Target

  1992–93

  23.7

  —

  1997–98

  23.3

  22.5

  1998–99

  22.8

  24

  April-October 1999

  23.1

  24

  Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of cleared-up crime was committed by(a) males under 18, (b) males between 18 and 25, (c) males over 25, (d) females under 18, (e) females between 18 and 25 and (f) females over 25 in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [102655]
  144W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The statistics on cleared up crime are not collected centrally by age or sex. However, the Cautions and Court Proceedings Databases contain details of persons cautioned or convicted by age and sex from which the figures in the table have been derived.

  Persons cautioned or convicted for an indictable offence by age and sex in 1998 —England and Wales

  Total

  Expressed as a percentage of all persons cautioned or convicted

  Males

  Aged 10 to 17

  99,027

  19

  Aged 18 to 25

  166,795

  31

  Aged 26 or over

  170,034

  32

  All males

  435,856

  82

  Females

  Aged 10 to 17

  27,891

  5

  Aged 18 to 25

  29,992

  6

  Aged 26 or over

  38,253

  7

  All females

  96,136

  18

  All persons

  Aged 10 to 17

  126,918

  24

  Aged 18 to 25

  196,787

  37

  Aged 26 or over

  208,287

  39

  All persons

  531,992

  100

  Prisoner Behaviour
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of(a) incidents of concerted indiscipline, (b) incidents of self harm and (c) suicides in each Prison Service establishment and in total in (i) 1999 to date, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1992; and if he will make a statement. [102658]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in tables which have been placed in the Library.

  The Government are committed to doing everything possible to try to reduce the number of self-inflicted deaths and incidents of self-harm in prisons. The Prison Service is developing a whole range of additional measures to address this issue and to provide further help and protection to those considered to be at risk of self-harm; this work is being informed by the recommendations of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' Thematic Review published in May of this year.

  The Prison Service is also increasing the involvement of external interest groups through a regular working group and in projects and research into suicides. There has been for some time a close working relationship with the Samaritans who have a great deal of expertise in this area. Listener schemes, whereby prisoners offer support to fellow prisoners in crisis, are now established in over 100 prisons in England and Wales, the majority of which are supported by the Samaritans.

  In addition, instructions and guidance to staff on caring for the suicidal are being re-examined and drawn together in a new Prison Service Order (PSO) which it is hoped will be ready for issue in April 2000. This will highlight good practice and strengthen strategies to provide care for those prisoners at risk.
  145W
  There has been a substantial decrease in the number of concerted acts of indiscipline since 1992 (other than a brief rise in 1998). The Prison Service routinely monitors trends to detect any increase in the seriousness and frequency of acts of indiscipline. In the meantime, it continues to develop control and restraint techniques to ensure that staff can respond effectively to these incidents when they occur.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the figures for(a) the number of police officers per police force and in total on 30 September, (b) the change in the number of police officers per force and in total between September 1998 and September 1999 and (c) the change in the number of police officers per force and in total between March 1997 and September 1999; and if he will make a statement. [102669]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the numbers of police officers in England and Wales as at 30 September 1999 is not yet available. We hope to release the information requested in January, once the data for September 1999 are complete and have been validated.

  Curfew Orders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rules are governing the employment of responsible officers for the monitoring of curfew orders; and if he will make a statement. [102656]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Three private sector contractors provide the electronic monitoring service in England and Wales. This includes the Home Detention Curfew scheme, the monitoring of curfew orders under the Criminal

  Police force net expenditure, and percentage change in cash terms 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  £000

  (±%)

  £000

  (±%)

  £000

  (±%)

  Avon and Somerset

  152,673

  0.4

  167,417

  9.7

  174,424

  4.2

  Bedfordshire

  58,570

  3.4

  62,317

  6.4

  64,027

  2.7

  Cambridgeshire

  68,681

  5.6

  71,230

  3.7

  75,363

  5.8

  Cheshire

  104,005

  10.4

  106,523

  2.4

  111,094

  4.3

  City of London

  57,893

  1.0

  60,862

  5.1

  58,719

  —3.5

  Cleveland

  75,426

  3.2

  82,282

  9.1

  85,397

  3.8

  Cumbria

  61,709

  8.5

  63,000

  2.1

  64,693

  2.7

  Derbyshire

  95,641

  5.8

  100,894

  5.5

  107,035

  6.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  155,435

  3.4

  167,117

  7.5

  173,649

  3.9

  Dorset

  69,727

  2.8

  73,497

  5.4

  77,749

  5.8

  Durham

  75,166

  10.5

  78,103

  3.9

  80,712

  3.3

  Dyfed-Powys

  50,952

  6.4

  52,609

  3.3

  56,143

  6.7

  Essex

  157,487

  4.0

  168,889

  7.2

  171,590

  1.6

  Gloucestershire

  58,633

  0.4

  63,780

  8.8

  65,933

  3.4

  Greater Manchester

  353,319

  3.6

  371,497

  5.1

  387,256

  4.2

  Gwent

  64,598

  11.9

  67,919

  5.1

  71,414

  5.1

  Hampshire

  180,791

  4.6

  190,920

  5.6

  196,955

  3.2

  Hertfordshire

  93,011

  4.7

  97,589

  5.2

  102,361

  4.6

  Humberside

  106,220

  6.5

  111,587

  5.1

  114,306

  2.4

  Kent

  174,211

  7.8

  178,916

  2.7

  186,225

  4.1

  Lancashire

  169,275

  4.6

  178,051

  5.2

  182,679

  2.6

  Leicestershire

  98,789

  6.4

  102,707

  4.0

  106,279

  3.5

  Lincolnshire

  66,184

  7.6

  68,322

  3.2

  69,970

  2.4

  Merseyside

  224,327

  1.4

  245,277

  9.3

  249,522

  1.7

  Metropolitan Police

  1,676,617

  —0.4

  1,778,001

  6.0

  1,840,245

  3.5

  Norfolk

  80,222

  6.2

  82,339

  2.6

  86,870

  5.5

  Northamptonshire

  64,605

  9.0

  67,134

  3.9

  70,432

  4.9

  Northumbria

  195,092

  4.7

  205,380

  5.3

  213,010

  3.7

  146W
  Justice Act 1991, which became available throughout England and Wales on 1 December, and the existing trials of curfew orders under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.

  Responsible officers are employees of the electronic monitoring contractors. Approval is required from the Home Office prior to the appointment of any member of staff. Such approval is subject to security vetting by the National Information Service and, where appropriate, the Department of Health.

  For the purposes of curfew orders, each contractor designates employees who act as responsible officers for those offenders receiving a curfew order. More than one employee can be designated as a responsible officer. Responsible officers are responsible before the courts for the monitoring of those subject to a curfew order, and for attending court to make applications for summons, warrants, revocations and amendments to the order, to report violations, to present evidence for enforcement action and other matters as necessary.

  Police Force Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) as planned for 2000–01, was the (i) cash change, (ii) real terms change and (iii) real terms change from the previous year in each case after taking into account the cost of police pensions, in each case, for each police force and in total; and if he will make a statement. [102648]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information in respect of 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, which has been compiled from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's Police Statistics, is set out in the tables. Information in respect of 2000–01 is not yet available as police authorities have not yet set their budgets for that year.
  147W

  Police force net expenditure, and percentage change in cash terms 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  £000

  (±%)

  £000

  (±%)

  £000

  (±%)

  North Wales

  70,920

  3.9

  75,075

  5.9

  80,505

  7.2

  North Yorkshire

  71,840

  7.2

  75,638

  5.3

  78,085

  3.2

  Nottinghamshire

  120,556

  6.1

  124,828

  3.5

  130,173

  4.3

  South Wales

  159,411

  8.1

  163,430

  2.5

  169,968

  4.0

  South Yorkshire

  166,027

  10.0

  168,205

  1.3

  173,933

  3.4

  Staffordshire

  110,264

  2.3

  122,540

  11.1

  127,472

  4.0

  Suffolk

  63,676

  4.5

  65,785

  3.3

  70,538

  7.2

  Surrey

  90,976

  6.6

  90,738

  —0.3

  100,375

  10.6

  Sussex

  157,631

  4.7

  162,664

  3.2

  165,804

  1.9

  Thames Valley

  210,333

  4.4

  221,147

  5.1

  232,729

  5.2

  Warwickshire

  51,003

  7.0

  53,617

  5.1

  56,157

  4.7

  West Mercia

  107,788

  5.6

  112,879

  4.7

  116,490

  3.2

  West Midlands

  360,129

  6.5

  372,296

  3.4

  380,971

  2.3

  West Yorkshire

  281,745

  6.2

  280,739

  —0.4

  288,865

  2.9

  Wiltshire

  58,535

  —2.4

  66,666

  13.9

  69,715

  4.6

  Total

  6,870,093

  3.8

  7,220,676

  5.1

  7,485,832

  3.7

  Police force net expenditure, and percentage change in real terms 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  £000

  (±%)

  £000

  (±%)

  £000

  (±%)

  Avon and Somerset

  152,673

  —2.3

  167,417

  6.9

  174,424

  1.9

  Bedfordshire

  58,570

  0.6

  62,317

  3.8

  64,027

  0.5

  Cambridgeshire

  68,681

  2.8

  71,230

  1.1

  75,363

  3.5

  Cheshire

  104,005

  7.4

  106,523

  —0.1

  111,094

  2.0

  City of London

  57,893

  —1.7

  60,862

  2.5

  58,719

  —5.6

  Cleveland

  75,426

  0.4

  82,282

  6.4

  85,397

  1.5

  Cumbria

  61,709

  5.6

  63,000

  —0.4

  64,693

  0.4

  Derbyshire

  95,641

  2.9

  100,894

  2.9

  107,035

  3.8

  Devon and Cornwall

  155,435

  0.6

  167,117

  4.9

  173,649

  1.6

  Dorset

  69,727

  0.0

  73,497

  2.8

  77,749

  3.5

  Durham

  75,166

  7.5

  78,103

  1.3

  80,712

  1.1

  Dyfed-Powys

  50,952

  3.6

  52,609

  0.7

  56,143

  4.4

  Essex

  157,487

  1.2

  168,889

  4.6

  171,590

  —0.6

  Gloucestershire

  58,633

  —2.4

  63,780

  6.1

  65,933

  1.1

  Greater Manchester

  353,319

  0.8

  371,497

  2.5

  387,256

  1.9

  Gwent

  64,598

  8.8

  67,919

  2.5

  71,414

  2.8

  Hampshire

  180,791

  1.8

  190,920

  3.0

  196,955

  0.9

  Hertfordshire

  93,011

  1.8

  97,859

  2.6

  102,361

  2.3

  Humberside

  106,220

  3.6

  111,587

  2.5

  114,306

  0.2

  Kent

  174,211

  4.9

  178,916

  0.2

  186,225

  1.8

  Lancashire

  169,275

  1.7

  178,051

  2.6

  182,679

  0.3

  Leicestershire

  98,789

  3.5

  102,707

  1.4

  106,279

  1.2

  Lincolnshire

  66,184

  4.7

  68,322

  0.7

  69,970

  0.2

  Merseyside

  224,327

  —1.3

  245,277

  6.6

  249,522

  —0.5

  Metropolitan Police

  1,676,617

  —3.1

  1,778,001

  3.4

  1,840,245

  1.2

  Norfolk

  80,222

  3.3

  82,339

  0.1

  86,870

  3.2

  Northamptonshire

  64,605

  6.1

  67,134

  1.3

  70,432

  2.6

  Northumbria

  195,092

  1.8

  205,380

  2.7

  213,010

  1.4

  North Wales

  70,920

  1.1

  75,075

  3.2

  80,505

  4.9

  North Yorkshire

  71,840

  4.3

  75,638

  2.7

  78,085

  1.0

  Nottinghamshire

  120,556

  3.3

  124,828

  1.0

  130,173

  2.0

  South Wales

  159,411

  5.2

  163,430

  0.0

  169,968

  1.7

  South Yorkshire

  166,027

  7.0

  168,205

  —1.2

  173,933

  1.1

  Staffordshire

  110,264

  —0.5

  122,540

  8.4

  127,472

  1.7

  Suffolk

  63,676

  1.6

  65,785

  0.8

  70,538

  4.9

  Surrey

  90,976

  3.7

  90,738

  —2.7

  375

  8.2

  Sussex

  157,631

  1.8

  162,664

  0.6

  165,804

  —0.3

  Thames Valley

  210,333

  1.6

  221,147

  2.5

  232,729

  2.9

  Warwickshire

  51,003

  4.1

  53,617

  2.5

  56,157

  2.4

  West Mercia

  107,788

  2.7

  112,879

  2.1

  116,490

  0.9

  West Midlands

  360,129

  3.7

  372,296

  0.8

  380,971

  0.1

  West Yorkshire

  281,745

  3.3

  280,739

  —2.8

  288,865

  0.6

  Wiltshire

  58,535

  —5.1

  66,666

  11.1

  69,715

  2.3

  Total

  6,870,093

  1.0

  7,220,676

  2.5

  7,485,832

  1.4

  Notes:

  1997–98—CIPFA Police Statistics Actuals

  1998–99 and 1999–2000 CIPFA Police Statistics Estimates
  148W 149W

  Police force net expenditure 1997–98 to 1999–2000: Percentage increase in real terms excluding pensions expenditure

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Avon and Somerset

  —4.0

  6.8

  1.6

  Bedfordshire

  —1.6

  4.2

  —1.5

  Cambridgeshire

  1.7

  1.1

  1.8

  Cheshire

  4.0

  0.4

  0.3

  City of London

  —3.0

  1.5

  —6.3

  Cleveland

  1.5

  3.3

  —2.8

  Cumbria

  5.7

  —1.6

  —.06

  Derbyshire

  2.0

  2.1

  3.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  —0.5

  4.5

  1.0

  Dorset

  —2.0

  2.9

  1.5

  Durham

  1.6

  6.1

  3.4

  Dyfed-Powys

  4.0

  —0.5

  4.0

  Essex

  0.0

  3.9

  —0.9

  Gloucestershire

  —1.8

  4.7

  1.8

  Greater Manchester

  —2.3

  3.2

  1.2

  Gwent

  6.6

  3.1

  3.2

  Hampshire

  1.7

  1.9

  0.1

  Hertfordshire

  1.0

  2.5

  —0.6

  Humberside

  1.0

  3.6

  —1.6

  Kent

  2.1

  —0.1

  0.4

  Lancashire

  1.4

  2.9

  0.2

  Leicestershire

  n/a

  n/a

  1.2

  Lincolnshire

  3.1

  —0.2

  —1.5

  Merseyside

  —0.3

  6.3

  — 0.7

  Metropolitan Police

  —4.4

  2.9

  0.2

  Norfolk

  2.9

  1.3

  2.2

  Northamptonshire

  0.0

  2.1

  5.1

  Northumbria

  3.8

  0.9

  2.0

  North Wales

  2.7

  3.5

  1.0

  North Yorkshire

  0.8

  3.1

  1.2

  Nottinghamshire

  0.1

  2.2

  1.4

  South Wales

  0.6

  2.9

  2.8

  South Yorkshire

  2.8

  1.0

  0.4

  Staffordshire

  —3.9

  7.1

  3.7

  Suffolk

  1.5

  1.2

  4.0

  Surrey

  —0.9

  —0.7

  9.6

  Sussex

  1.2

  —1.3

  —1.1

  Thames Valley Police

  0.1

  3.4

  2.0

  Warwickshire

  —1.7

  5.3

  —0.9

  West Mercia

  1.8

  2.3

  —0.3

  West Midlands

  1.3

  1.7

  —0.5

  West Yorkshire

  1.6

  —3.0

  —0.5

  Wiltshire

  —2.3

  10.2

  2.0

  Total

  —0.5

  2.3

  0.6

  Applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and decisions, 1995–99

  Cases considered under normal procedures

  Backlog clearance exercise

  Total applications

  Total decisions1,2

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refusals

  Granted exceptional leave under backlog criteria 3,4

  Refused on non compliance grounds under backlog criteria 3,5

  1995

  43,965

  27,005

  1,295

  4,410

  21,300

  n/a

  n/a

  1996

  29,640

  38,960

  2,240

  5,055

  31,670

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  32,500

  36,045

  3,985

  3,115

  28,945

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  46,015

  31,570

  5,345

  3,910

  22,315

  n/a

  n/a

  19996

  66,945

  30,940

  7.135

  2,150

  10,970

  9,595

  1,095

  1 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  2Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  4Includes a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.

  5Includes a small number of cases where the applications has been refused on substantive grounds.

  6Provisional figures for 12 months ending 31 October.

  Note:

  Figures rounded to the nearest 5. n/a = not applicable.

  Privatised Ports Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if HM Inspectorate of Constabulary will conduct an inspection into the proposals to revise the size and management of the Port of Tilbury Police and its implications for the independence of each officer in the fulfilment of his or her duties as a constable. [102437]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary of the Port of Tilbury Police—or indeed, any other non-Home Office police force—must be by the prior invitation of the force. There has been no such invitation from the force.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when HM Inspectorate of Constabulary last inspected the Northern Ireland Airport Police. [102439]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary of the Northern Ireland Airport Police—or indeed, any other non-Home Office police force—must be by the prior invitation of the force. No inspection has taken place as there has been no such invitation from the force.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if HM Inspectorate of Constabulary will conduct an inspection into the management of the Port of Liverpool Police in relation to the capacity of each officer in the fulfilment of his or her duties as a constable. [102438]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Inspection by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary of the Port of Liverpool Police—or indeed, any other non-Home Office police force—must be by the prior invitation of the force. There has been no such invitation from the Port of Liverpool Police since 1978.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have applied for political asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the five most recent 12 month periods; how many of those applicants in each year have had their request rejected; and how many have been deported in consequence. [102626]

  Mrs. Roche
  The requested information is given in the tables.
  151W

  Removals and voluntary departures 12 under port or enforcement procedures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1995–99

  Year

  Number

  1995

  3,180

  1996

  4,840

  1997

  7,160

  1998

  6,900

  19991

  7,740

  1Does not include persons who may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  2 Includes persons departing voluntarily after enforcement action had been initiated against them.

  3Provisional figure for 12 months ending 31 October.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to 10.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisation within his Department has the responsibility for arranging the deportation of asylum seekers whose applications are rejected; and what assessment has been made of the manner in which these responsibilities are undertaken. [102628]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration Service is responsible for arranging for the removal from the United Kingdom of asylum seekers whose applications are refused. This includes those who are removed following deportation action. The Immigration Service is on target to meet the target of 8,000 removals in the current financial year. Targets for future years were set out in the annex to the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum" which was published in July 1998. These targets are currently being reviewed.

  The review of immigration procedures which preceded the White Paper's proposals identified a number of changes which we considered necessary to improve the enforcement of the immigration control. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 enables a number of these to be given effect. The performance of the Immigration Service is kept under constant review in order to encourage the adoption of best practice, ensure that priorities are dealt with and identify options for improving performance.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept of those persons who apply for political asylum and have their cases rejected; and how many such persons remain in the United Kingdom. [102627]

  Mrs. Roche
  Records are kept on all persons applying for asylum. These case files identify the initial decision, the outcome of any appeal, port or enforcement action taken subsequently and the removal of the person from the country. However, we do not have data available on how many asylum applicants have voluntarily left the country without the knowledge of the Home Office. Therefore, it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the number of failed asylum seekers remaining in the country.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the research projects being undertaken as part of the Government's anti-drugs strategy announced following the Comprehensive Spending Review. [102661]
  152W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The programme of research, for which £6 million has been allocated over three years, is designed to improve research and information gathering in support of the Government's 10 year strategy for tracking drug misuse. At present, the programme includes the following projects:

  NEW-ADAM (New England and Wales Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring)—Voluntary drug testing and interviewing of arrestees in 16 custody suites across England and Wales (in progress);

  Drug use questionnaire survey of school pupils in England (in progress);

  Strategic review of regional drug misuse databases for treatment in England and Wales (in progress);

  Survey of drug availability based on the perceptions of local experts (in progress);

  Estimating the current capacity and future demands for drug treatment (complete); and

  A supply-side programme of research to develop a model of the United Kingdom drugs market (in progress).

  Prisons (Drug-free Units)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the drug-free units in prisons in England and Wales; and how many inmates are held in each of these units. [102403]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows the prisons with a designated voluntary testing unit or discrete area in prisons in England and Wales, and the number of places within each unit.

  Total number of drug-free units in prisons in England and Wales and the number of prisoners held in each of these units

  Establishment

  Number of places

  Aldington

  20

  Altcourse

  140

  Bedford

  28

  Belmarsh

  55

  Blundeston

  120

  Bristol

  115

  Brockhill

  20

  Buckley Hall

  66

  Bullingdon

  83

  Channings Wood

  149

  Dartmoor

  30

  Doncaster

  180

  Down View

  343

  Drake Hall

  19

  Elmley

  68

  Everthorpe

  134

  Featherstone

  116

  Frankland

  240

  Full Sutton

  116

  Haverigg

  112

  High Down

  55

  High Point

  32

  Hindley

  70

  Holme House

  129

  Hull

  106

  Lancaster

  16

  Leicester

  30

  Lewes

  1—

  Lindholme

  169

  Liverpool

  268

  Long Lartin

  72

  Maidstone

  68

  Manchester

  416

  Mount

  260

  New Hall

  67

  153W

  Total number of drug-free units in prisons in England and Wales and the number of prisoners held in each of these units

  Establishment

  Number of places

  North Sea Camp

  31

  Northallerton

  32

  Norwich

  143

  Parc

  180

  Parkhurst

  224

  Pentonville

  110

  Portland

  72

  Ranby

  72

  Reading

  20

  Risley

  77

  Send

  60

  Shrewsbury

  140

  Standford

  40

  Stocken

  160

  Styal

  57

  Sudbury

  120

  Swaleside

  72

  Swinfen Hall

  60

  Verne

  168

  Wandsworth

  68

  Wayland

  149

  Wealstun

  60

  Weare

  50

  Wellingborough

  180

  Whitemoor

  126

  Winchester

  24

  Wolds

  125

  Woodhill

  1—

  Total (63)

  6,632

  1Number of prisoners held not available

  Prisons (Girl Inmates)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls aged 15 to 18 years, held in adult prisons, share(a) facilities and (b) accommodation with adults. [102235]

  Mr. Boateng
  At the end of October there was a total of 102 young women under the age of 18 in Prison Service custody, of whom 81 were sentenced. The remaining 21 were 17-year-olds remanded awaiting trial or sentence. All remanded young women aged 15 and 16 are held in local authority care.

  In the past, female young offenders and adult women were co-located, however, following the Flood judgment of August 1997, all female offenders under 21 years of age are held in designated young offender accommodation.

  On 8 March 1999, Official Report, columns 28–29W, my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, announced that from the introduction of the Detention and Training order in April 2000, sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls will be placed in local authority care, not in prison. In the longer term, as places become available, sentenced young women aged 17 will also be placed outside Prison Service custody.

  The Prison Service is working closely with governors to ensure that female young offenders are kept in appropriate physically discrete accommodation and to develop specific regime provision for young women.

  Police Officers (Ranks)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each of(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990, (d) 1995 and (e) the latest year for which figures are available, if he will list the total number of officers who held the rank of (i) Inspector or Chief Inspector, (ii) Superintendent or Chief Superintendent and (iii) Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable, Assistant Chief Constable or equivalent rank for each police force in England and Wales. [R] [102401]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information in the form requested is readily available only for the years 1995 and 1999. This information is set out in the tables.

  I will write to the right hon. Member with information for the earlier years, as soon as it is available.

  Police Service in England and Wales—Strength1 for 31 March 1995

  Police force

  (i) Inspector or Chief Inspector

  (ii) Superintendent or Chief Superintendent

  (iii) Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable

  Avon and Somerset

  207

  36

  5

  Bedfordshire

  75

  16

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  81

  14

  3

  Cheshire

  129

  21

  4

  City of London

  70

  9

  2

  Cleveland

  106

  14

  2

  Cumbria

  89

  16

  3

  Derbyshire

  129

  21

  4

  Devon and Cornwall

  185

  37

  4

  Dorset

  97

  20

  3

  Durham

  96

  20

  3

  Essex

  180

  31

  5

  Gloucestershire

  78

  16

  3

  Greater Manchester

  510

  83

  7

  Hampshire

  197

  45

  5

  Hertfordshire

  121

  23

  3

  Humberside

  140

  24

  4

  Kent

  236

  32

  5

  Lancashire

  232

  38

  5

  Leicestershire

  129

  20

  4

  Lincolnshire

  87

  15

  3

  Merseyside

  316

  67

  5

  Metropolitan police

  1,698

  212

  43

  Norfolk

  86

  17

  3

  Northamptonshire

  77

  12

  3

  Northumbria

  230

  43

  5

  North Yorkshire

  86

  16

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  151

  30

  4

  South Yorkshire

  203

  43

  5

  Staffordshire

  155

  31

  4

  Suffolk

  83

  18

  3

  Surrey

  119

  22

  4

  Sussex

  202

  29

  5

  Thames Valley

  253

  49

  5

  Warwickshire

  73

  10

  3

  West Mercia

  165

  26

  4

  West Midlands

  463

  89

  7

  West Yorkshire

  355

  46

  6

  Wiltshire

  90

  15

  2

  Dyfed-Powys

  63

  14

  3

  Gwent

  56

  14

  2

  North Wales

  98

  23

  3

  South Wales

  205

  37

  4

  Total all forces

  8,401

  1,414

  206

  1Full-time equivalents

  155W

  Police strength in England and Wales—Strength 1 for ordinary duty as at 31 March 1999

  Police force

  (i) Inspector or Chief Inspector

  (ii) Superitendent or Chief Superintendent

  (iii) Chief Constable or Assistant Chief Constable

  Avon and Somerset

  191

  23

  4

  Bedfordshire

  64

  13

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  75

  15

  3

  Cheshire

  132

  20

  4

  City of London

  57

  8

  3

  Cleveland

  67

  24

  3

  Cumbria

  68

  10

  3

  Derbyshire

  119

  24

  4

  Devon and Cornwall

  181

  26

  5

  Dorset

  85

  16

  2

  Durham

  101

  18

  3

  Dyfed Powys

  61

  16

  3

  Essex

  179

  28

  4

  Gloucestershire

  70

  10

  3

  Greater Manchester

  432

  78

  7

  Gwent

  75

  15

  2

  Hampshire

  202

  36

  4

  Hertfordshire

  116

  20

  4

  Humberside

  134

  19

  3

  Kent

  190

  27

  4

  Lancashire

  209

  33

  4

  Leicestershire

  117

  17

  4

  Lincolnshire

  82

  14

  3

  Merseyside

  231

  48

  5

  Metropolitan police

  1,507

  210

  40

  Norfolk

  99

  16

  3

  Northamptonshire

  66

  12

  3

  Northumbria

  243

  37

  5

  North Wales

  97

  16

  3

  North Yorkshire

  75

  13

  3

  Nottinghamshire

  135

  20

  4

  South Wales

  200

  27

  5

  South Yorkshire

  211

  35

  5

  Staffordshire

  147

  22

  4

  Suffolk

  69

  14

  3

  Surrey

  97

  17

  4

  Sussex

  190

  25

  5

  Thames Valley

  223

  48

  4

  Warwickshire

  58

  11

  3

  West Mercia

  135

  19

  4

  West Midlands

  356

  58

  6

  West Yorkshire

  320

  42

  6

  Wiltshire

  76

  13

  3

  Total all forces

  7,540

  1,213

  200

  1Full-time equivalents

  CS Spray
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been disciplined for the inappropriate use of CS spray in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [102355]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  For the period 1 April to 9 December 1999, 46 cases relating to the use of CS spray were investigated under the supervision of the Police Complaints Authority, of which one complaint led to charges being brought against an officer and one other led to disciplinary advice being given.

  138 further unsupervised cases were referred to the Authority's discipline section during this period. It is not possible at present to say how many of these complaints have been substantiated.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents occurred in each of the last five years, broken down by police force area in England and Wales, where shots were discharged by persons engaged in criminal activity. [102165]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The first table shows for each year 1994 to 1998, the number of firearms (including air weapons) discharged in notifiable offences recorded by the police in each police force area in England and Wales. Information on air weapons discharged during the years 1995 to 1997 is not available centrally.

  The second table gives similar information for 1994 and 1998 for all firearms, excluding air weapons.

  Numbers of firearms discharged (including air weapons) in notifiable offences recorded by the police, England and Wales 1994 and 19981

  Police force

  1994

  1998

  Avon and Somerset

  154

  186

  Bedfordshire

  84

  107

  Cambridgeshire

  102

  113

  Cheshire

  61

  65

  Cleveland

  154

  191

  Cumbria

  51

  33

  Derbyshire

  230

  270

  Devon and Cornwall

  136

  91

  Dorset

  30

  35

  Durham

  94

  50

  Essex

  239

  279

  Gloucestershire

  61

  79

  Greater Manchester

  322

  558

  Hampshire

  176

  79

  Hertfordshire

  16

  36

  Humberside

  508

  460

  Kent

  409

  203

  Lancashire

  94

  132

  Leicestershire

  71

  71

  Lincolnshire

  86

  75

  London, City of

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  384

  586

  Metropolitan Police

  569

  1,305

  Norfolk

  54

  26

  Northamptonshire

  126

  139

  Northumbria

  321

  312

  North Yorkshire

  101

  66

  Nottinghamshire

  202

  538

  South Yorkshire

  383

  322

  Staffordshire

  210

  116

  Suffolk

  60

  12

  Surrey

  49

  25

  Sussex

  109

  206

  Thames Valley

  236

  346

  Warwickshire

  77

  44

  West Mercia

  110

  78

  West Midlands

  373

  531

  West Yorkshire

  810

  896

  Wiltshire

  11

  66

  Dyfed Powys

  22

  39

  Gwent

  35

  163

  North Wales

  67

  77

  South Wales

  255

  243

  Total

  7,642

  9,249

  1 Number of air weapons discharged for the years 1995–97 are not available centrally

  157W

  Numbers of firearms discharged (excluding air weapons) in notifiable offences recorded by the police, England and Wales 1994–98

  Police force

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Avon and Somerset

  17

  16

  10

  8

  12

  Bedfordshire

  15

  12

  9

  6

  7

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  7

  5

  1

  3

  Cheshire

  7

  6

  4

  1

  5

  Cleveland

  14

  5

  9

  9

  4

  Cumbria

  3

  9

  2

  2

  —

  Derbyshire

  15

  11

  9

  17

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  4

  7

  4

  34

  Dorset

  2

  2

  6

  3

  4

  Durham

  1

  4

  10

  5

  5

  Essex

  23

  25

  14

  15

  10

  Gloucestershire

  4

  10

  7

  7

  5

  Greater Manchester

  59

  58

  55

  77

  96

  Hampshire

  17

  6

  9

  5

  11

  Hertfordshire

  5

  15

  19

  10

  9

  Humberside

  5

  4

  13

  11

  4

  Kent

  43

  18

  13

  19

  16

  Lancashire

  8

  19

  6

  15

  7

  Leicestershire

  15

  8

  12

  20

  16

  Lincolnshire

  6

  6

  2

  1

  3

  London, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  17

  44

  60

  18

  27

  Metropolitan Police

  190

  157

  332

  412

  463

  Norfolk

  5

  8

  2

  4

  4

  Northamptonshire

  7

  9

  11

  8

  12

  Northumbria

  39

  20

  28

  9

  10

  North Yorkshire

  4

  2

  —

  5

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  13

  15

  24

  33

  42

  South Yorkshire

  52

  30

  23

  22

  22

  Staffordshire

  21

  11

  5

  2

  5

  Suffolk

  6

  3

  —

  2

  —

  Surrey

  5

  2

  3

  4

  1

  Sussex

  18

  13

  11

  20

  25

  Thames Valley

  19

  30

  38

  23

  13

  Warwickshire

  8

  2

  2

  —

  3

  West Mercia

  11 1

  3

  13

  7

  12

  West Midlan

  57

  132

  153

  73

  96

  West Yorkshire

  27

  34

  35

  16

  16

  Wiltshire

  —

  1

  3

  4

  2

  Dyfed Powys

  9

  4

  5

  4

  2

  Population in prisons in England and Wales by nationality, ethnicity and establishment, 31 October 19991

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Prison

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not brown

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  Acklington

  686

  5

  —

  4

  1

  —

  7

  5

  Albany

  381

  19

  —

  12

  7

  —

  4

  3

  Altcourse

  812

  10

  1

  14

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ashwell

  380

  7

  —

  54

  4

  —

  22

  3

  —

  Askham Grange

  93

  —

  —

  22

  3

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Aylesbury

  199

  7

  —

  102

  14

  —

  12

  4

  —

  Bedford

  282

  15

  1

  31

  11

  —

  24

  12

  —

  Belmarsh

  480

  39

  —

  133

  44

  —

  8

  3

  —

  Birmingham

  751

  23

  —

  176

  20

  —

  18

  11

  —

  Blakenhurst

  664

  21

  2

  71

  16

  1

  19

  17

  —

  Blantyre House

  100

  2

  —

  6

  4

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Blundeston

  211

  12

  —

  67

  29

  —

  7

  1

  1

  —

  Brinsford

  371

  4

  1

  80

  7

  —

  27

  1

  —

  Bristol

  490

  10

  —

  54

  6

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Brixton

  347

  65

  —

  181

  102

  —

  6

  14

  —

  Brockhill

  121

  2

  1

  18

  4

  —

  4

  2

  —

  Buckley Hall

  314

  7

  —

  37

  4

  —

  12

  1

  —

  158W

  Numbers of firearms discharged (excluding air weapons) in notifiable offences recorded by the police, England and Wales 1994—

  Police force

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Gwent

  5

  6

  4

  7

  2

  North Wales

  4

  6

  10

  2

  8

  South Wales

  10

  5

  9

  5

  5

  Total

  803

  782

  992

  916

  1,030

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in each of the last five years and the current year to date how many illegally held(a) shotguns, (b).22 rifles, (c) rifles of greater calibre than.22, (d) handguns and (e) other firearms were seized by the police in each police force area in England and Wales. [102162]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homicides were committed using(a) shotguns, (b) rifles, (c) handguns and (d) other firearms, in each police force area in England and Wales in each of the last five years and the current year; and how many homicides were committed by the use of a legally held firearm used by the owner, shown by the type of weapon used. [102166]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Tables that have been placed in the Library give the requested information, including the legal status of the firearm where this was known.

  All the data for 1998, and the legally held data for 1995 to 1998 is provisional.

  No information is yet available for 1999.

  Prisoners (Ethnic Breakdown)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the ethnic breakdown of(a) prisoners of British nationality and (b) all prisoners in each prison in England and Wales. [102171]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table.
  159W

  Population in prisons in England and Wales by nationality, ethnicity and establishment, 31 October 19991

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Prison

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  Bullingdon

  690

  27

  —

  80

  16

  —

  21

  7

  —

  Bullwood Hall

  92

  6

  —

  15

  13

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Camp Hill

  332

  24

  —

  69

  25

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Canterbury

  215

  51

  —

  3

  12

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Cardiff

  620

  4

  —

  43

  2

  —

  3

  1

  —

  Castington

  292

  1

  —

  9

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Channings Wood

  543

  8

  —

  11

  4

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Chelmsford

  386

  17

  —

  25

  4

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Coldingly

  143

  6

  —

  71

  38

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Cookham Wood

  70

  9

  —

  17

  32

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dartmoor

  561

  9

  —

  31

  8

  —

  2

  3

  —

  Deerbolt

  411

  1

  —

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  942

  6

  2

  80

  3

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Dorchester

  233

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dover

  199

  6

  —

  59

  11

  —

  5

  1

  —

  Downview

  192

  9

  —

  89

  16

  —

  5

  3

  —

  Drake Hall

  201

  7

  —

  16

  12

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Durham

  859

  6

  —

  8

  7

  —

  —

  2

  —

  East Sutton Park

  56

  5

  —

  13

  5

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Eastwood Park

  262

  12

  —

  12

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Elmley

  699

  89

  —

  63

  23

  —

  7

  6

  —

  Erlestoke

  254

  7

  —

  24

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Everthorpe

  426

  6

  —

  15

  1

  —

  7

  —

  —

  Exeter

  463

  6

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Featherstone

  444

  7

  —

  80

  3

  —

  30

  6

  —

  Feltham

  366

  24

  —

  263

  78

  —

  38

  9

  —

  Ford

  289

  12

  —

  26

  6

  —

  10

  8

  —

  Foston Hall

  112

  8

  —

  20

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Frankland

  451

  13

  —

  30

  8

  —

  8

  6

  —

  Full Sutton

  455

  19

  —

  43

  15

  —

  13

  7

  —

  Garth

  504

  15

  —

  63

  10

  —

  22

  9

  —

  Gartree

  298

  9

  —

  25

  3

  —

  6

  9

  —

  Glen Parva

  724

  3

  —

  74

  1

  —

  29

  2

  —

  Gloucester

  283

  4

  —

  21

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Grendon

  368

  12

  —

  48

  9

  —

  18

  3

  —

  Guys Marsh

  466

  5

  —

  25

  2

  —

  4

  4

  —

  Haslar

  —

  32

  —

  —

  41

  —

  —

  43

  2

  Hatfield

  92

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Haverigg

  379

  —

  —

  7

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Hewell Grange

  143

  3

  —

  10

  2

  —

  16

  5

  —

  Highdown

  456

  39

  —

  103

  63

  —

  8

  8

  —

  Highpoint

  488

  49

  —

  101

  75

  —

  8

  10

  —

  Hindley

  415

  1

  1

  42

  —

  —

  19

  4

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  203

  4

  —

  87

  13

  —

  6

  1

  —

  Holloway

  287

  37

  —

  64

  70

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Holme House

  923

  3

  —

  17

  2

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Hull

  485

  4

  —

  9

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Huntercombe

  190

  8

  —

  79

  17

  —

  13

  3

  —

  Kingston

  159

  4

  —

  8

  4

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Kirkham

  430

  2

  —

  7

  4

  —

  16

  2

  —

  Kirklevington

  162

  1

  —

  9

  1

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Lancaster

  184

  —

  —

  5

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  465

  5

  —

  15

  —

  —

  10

  1

  —

  Latchmere House

  115

  3

  —

  34

  7

  —

  7

  7

  —

  Leeds

  1,064

  9

  1

  64

  7

  —

  65

  21

  —

  Leicester

  298

  2

  —

  25

  2

  —

  11

  17

  —

  Lewes

  383

  14

  —

  33

  9

  —

  3

  1

  —

  Leyhill

  356

  6

  —

  16

  2

  —

  5

  3

  —

  Lincoln

  459

  6

  —

  13

  3

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Lindholme

  547

  4

  1

  32

  —

  —

  14

  3

  —

  Littlehey

  515

  21

  —

  45

  12

  —

  13

  11

  —

  Livaerpool

  1,359

  11

  —

  54

  9

  —

  9

  4

  —

  Long Lartin

  280

  19

  —

  61

  17

  —

  9

  6

  —

  Low Newton

  143

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lowdham Grange

  350

  30

  —

  84

  18

  —

  8

  5

  —

  Maidstone

  359

  28

  —

  79

  39

  —

  2

  10

  —

  Manchester

  977

  22

  —

  87

  17

  —

  19

  11

  —

  Moorland

  652

  2

  —

  60

  —

  —

  23

  2

  —

  Morton Hall

  175

  3

  —

  5

  —

  —

  12

  2

  —

  Mount

  287

  50

  —

  172

  67

  —

  32

  14

  —

  160W 161W

  Population in prisons in England and Wales by nationality, ethnicity and establishment, 31 October 19991

  White

  Black

  South Asian

  Prison

  British nationals

  White Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Black Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  South Asian Foreign nationals

  Not known

  New Hall

  335

  3

  —

  17

  1

  —

  3

  2

  —

  North Sea Camp

  170

  7

  —

  10

  2

  —

  11

  1

  —

  Northallerton

  256

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Norwich

  621

  16

  —

  35

  3

  —

  3

  2

  —

  Nottingham

  352

  6

  —

  55

  5

  —

  6

  7

  —

  Onley

  440

  6

  1

  75

  15

  —

  31

  2

  —

  Parc

  771

  11

  1

  17

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Parkhurst

  236

  34

  1

  74

  31

  —

  6

  7

  —

  Pentonville

  522

  66

  1

  257

  82

  —

  24

  20

  —

  Portland

  479

  6

  —

  52

  9

  —

  10

  1

  —

  Preston

  637

  8

  —

  9

  2

  —

  11

  4

  —

  Ranby

  656

  6

  —

  41

  3

  —

  28

  4

  —

  Reading

  202

  6

  —

  15

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Risley

  709

  14

  —

  43

  6

  —

  8

  3

  —

  Rochester

  150

  8

  —

  12

  36

  —

  1

  25

  —

  Send

  57

  11

  —

  37

  44

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Shepton Mallet

  166

  3

  —

  12

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Shrewsbury

  305

  2

  —

  14

  2

  —

  9

  2

  —

  Stafford

  516

  12

  —

  60

  4

  —

  13

  5

  —

  Standford Hill

  181

  22

  —

  36

  18

  —

  10

  11

  —

  Stocken

  451

  10

  —

  69

  7

  —

  22

  6

  —

  Stple Heath

  540

  2

  —

  64

  1

  —

  9

  2

  —

  Styal

  392

  7

  —

  20

  20

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Sudbury

  377

  10

  —

  49

  6

  —

  17

  16

  —

  Swaleside

  340

  82

  —

  120

  56

  —

  12

  11

  —

  Swansea

  308

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Swinfen Hall

  205

  2

  —

  52

  2

  —

  14

  1

  —

  Thorn Cross

  230

  1

  —

  14

  1

  —

  11

  2

  —

  Usk

  287

  5

  —

  2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Verne

  266

  83

  —

  11

  133

  —

  3

  10

  —

  Wakefield

  480

  11

  —

  48

  3

  —

  6

  3

  —

  Wandsworth

  738

  80

  —

  239

  83

  —

  11

  9

  —

  Wayland

  445

  19

  —

  95

  26

  —

  13

  3

  —

  Wealstun

  509

  9

  —

  31

  1

  —

  41

  11

  —

  Weare

  208

  12

  —

  46

  14

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Wellingborough

  344

  18

  —

  54

  11

  —

  20

  7

  —

  Werrington

  91

  1

  —

  8

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Wetherby

  318

  1

  1

  9

  —

  —

  8

  1

  —

  Whatton

  255

  5

  —

  3

  1

  —

  5

  1

  —

  Whitemoor

  233

  42

  —

  55

  13

  —

  4

  7

  —

  Winchester

  503

  19

  —

  28

  29

  —

  5

  4

  —

  Wolds

  371

  11

  —

  9

  3

  —

  3

  3

  —

  Woodhill

  571

  26

  —

  60

  9

  —

  15

  5

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  349

  55

  —

  102

  75

  —

  27

  15

  —

  Wymott

  725

  11

  —

  30

  2

  —

  14

  4

  —

  All

  51,732

  1,899

  16

  6,075

  1,963

  1

  1,227

  612

  2

  1 Provisional figures

  Population in prisons in England and Wales by nationality, ethnicity and establishment, 31 October 19991

  Chines & Other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Prison

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  All

  Acklington

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  700

  13

  —

  713

  Albany

  1

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  399

  33

  —

  432

  Altcourse

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  827

  14

  1

  842

  Ashwell

  13

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  470

  15

  —

  485

  Askham Grange

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  117

  7

  —

  124

  Aylesbury

  4

  5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  318

  30

  —

  348

  Bedford

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  341

  39

  1

  381

  Belmarsh

  21

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  642

  135

  —

  777

  Birmingham

  84

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,029

  64

  —

  1,093

  Blakenhurst

  12

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  766

  60

  3

  829

  Blantyre House

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  110

  9

  1

  120

  Bludeston

  10

  12

  —

  1

  —

  —

  296

  54

  —

  350

  Brinsford

  18

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  496

  13

  1

  510

  Bristol

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  547

  19

  —

  566

  Brixton

  20

  57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  554

  238

  —

  —

  792

  Brockhill

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  148

  9

  1

  158

  162W 163W

  Population in prisons in England and Wales by nationality, ethnicity and establishment, 31 October 19991

  Chines & Other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Prison

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  All

  Brckley Hall

  7

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  370

  15

  —

  385

  Bullingdon

  8

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  799

  57

  —

  856

  Bullwood Hall

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  22

  —

  133

  Camp Hill

  11

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  415

  60

  —

  475

  Canterbury

  —

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  218

  80

  —

  298

  Cardiff

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  672

  7

  —

  679

  Castington

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  306

  3

  —

  309

  Channings Wood

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  560

  15

  —

  575

  Chelmsford

  8

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  421

  30

  —

  451

  Coldingly

  5

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  221

  55

  —

  276

  Cookham Wood

  6

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  54

  —

  148

  Dartmoor

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  597

  22

  —

  619

  Deerbolt

  11

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  430

  2

  —

  432

  Doncaster

  66

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,095

  10

  2

  1,107

  Dorchester

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  238

  4

  —

  242

  Dover

  7

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  270

  25

  —

  295

  Downview

  8

  14

  —

  —

  4

  —

  294

  46

  —

  340

  Drake Hall

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  221

  22

  —

  243

  Durham

  2

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  869

  25

  —

  894

  East Sutton Park

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74

  15

  —

  89

  Eastwood Park

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  276

  27

  —

  303

  Elmley

  7

  15

  —

  —

  1

  —

  776

  134

  —

  910

  Erlestoke

  5

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  283

  17

  —

  300

  Everthorpe

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  456

  7

  —

  403

  Exeter

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  472

  8

  —

  480

  Featherstone

  18

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  572

  19

  —

  591

  Feltham

  15

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  682

  137

  —

  819

  Ford

  18

  15

  —

  1

  —

  —

  344

  41

  —

  385

  Foston Hall

  4

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  137

  33

  —

  170

  Frankland

  4

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  493

  39

  —

  532

  Full Sutton

  5

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  516

  55

  —

  571

  Garth

  9

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  599

  38

  —

  637

  Gartree

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  332

  24

  —

  356

  Glen Parva

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  835

  6

  —

  841

  Gloucester

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  307

  8

  —

  315

  Grendon

  7

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  441

  27

  —

  468

  Guys Marsh

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  501

  15

  —

  516

  Haslar

  —

  37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  153

  2

  155

  Hatfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95

  1

  —

  96

  Haverigg

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  393

  1

  —

  394

  Hewell Grange

  8

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  177

  11

  —

  188

  Highdown

  7

  14

  —

  1

  —

  —

  575

  124

  —

  699

  Highpoint

  20

  15

  —

  —

  —

  —

  617

  149

  —

  766

  Hindley

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  478

  6

  1

  485

  Hollesley Bay

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  301

  23

  —

  324

  Holloway

  13

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  364

  132

  —

  496

  Holme House

  12

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  955

  11

  —

  966

  Hull

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  497

  5

  —

  502

  Huntercombe

  6

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  288

  34

  —

  322

  Kingston

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  169

  12

  —

  181

  Kirkham

  9

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  463

  11

  —

  474

  Kirklevington

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  176

  3

  —

  179

  Lancaster

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  197

  1

  —

  198

  Lancaster Farms

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  501

  6

  —

  507

  Latchmere House

  6

  5

  —

  1

  —

  —

  163

  22

  —

  185

  Leeds

  14

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,207

  38

  —

  1,246

  Leicester

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  341

  21

  —

  362

  Lewes

  3

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  422

  29

  —

  451

  Leyhill 3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  380

  12

  —

  392

  Lincoln

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  478

  12

  —

  490

  Lindholme

  10

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  603

  8

  1

  612

  Littlehey

  10

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  583

  54

  —

  637

  Liverpool

  11

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,433

  25

  —

  1,458

  Long Lartin

  8

  17

  —

  3

  —

  —

  361

  59

  —

  420

  Low Newton

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  —

  —

  150

  Lowdham Grange

  6

  14

  —

  1

  —

  —

  449

  67

  —

  516

  Maidstone

  7

  24

  —

  1

  —

  —

  448

  101

  —

  549

  Manchester

  20

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,103

  58

  —

  1,161

  Moorland

  24

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  759

  6

  —

  765

  Morton Hall

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  193

  5

  —

  198

  164W 165W

  Population in prisons in England and Wales by nationality, ethnicity and establishment, 31 October 19991

  Chines & Other

  Not recorded

  Total

  Prison

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  British nationals

  Foreign nationals

  Not known

  All

  Mount

  13

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  504

  154

  —

  638

  New Hall

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  360

  7

  —

  367

  North Sea Camp

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  196

  10

  —

  206

  Northallerton

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  266

  1

  —

  267

  Norwich

  4

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  663

  27

  —

  690

  Nottingham

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  416

  18

  —

  434

  Onley

  16

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  563

  25

  1

  589

  Parc

  6

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  796

  15

  1

  812

  Parkhurst

  10

  53

  —

  1

  —

  —

  327

  125

  1

  453

  Pentonville

  53

  74

  —

  1

  —

  —

  857

  242

  1

  1,100

  Portland

  7

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  548

  17

  —

  565

  Preston

  6

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  664

  15

  —

  679

  Ranby

  7

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  732

  15

  —

  747

  Reading

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  221

  8

  —

  229

  Risley

  6

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  766

  27

  —

  763

  Rochester

  —

  136

  —

  —

  —

  —

  163

  205

  —

  368

  Send

  7

  7

  —

  1

  —

  —

  103

  63

  —

  166

  Shepton Mallet

  3

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  181

  9

  —

  190

  Shrewsbury

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  332

  6

  —

  338

  Stafford

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  603

  21

  —

  624

  Standford Hill

  4

  12

  —

  —

  —

  1

  231

  63

  1

  295

  Stocken

  6

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  548

  25

  —

  573

  Stoke Heath

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  625

  5

  —

  630

  Styal

  4

  6

  —

  1

  —

  —

  419

  34

  —

  453

  Sudbury

  18

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  461

  38

  —

  499

  Swaleside

  16

  49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  488

  198

  —

  686

  Swansea

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  312

  11

  —

  323

  Swinfen Hall

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  276

  5

  —

  281

  Thorn Cross

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  265

  4

  —

  269

  Usk

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  292

  6

  —

  298

  Verne

  4

  52

  —

  —

  —

  —

  284

  278

  —

  562

  Wakefield

  11

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  545

  18

  —

  563

  Wandsworth

  43

  91

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1,031

  264

  —

  1,295

  Wayland

  12

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  565

  58

  —

  623

  Wealstun

  10

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  591

  23

  —

  614

  Weare

  4

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  333

  31

  —

  364

  Wellingborough

  11

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  429

  44

  —

  473

  Werrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  101

  1

  —

  102

  Wetherby

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  341

  2

  1

  344

  Whatton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  264

  7

  —

  271

  Whitemoor

  4

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  296

  84

  —

  380

  Winchester

  6

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  542

  59

  —

  601

  Wolds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  383

  17

  —

  400

  Woodhill

  6

  7

  —

  2

  —

  —

  654

  47

  —

  701

  Wormwood Scrubs

  26

  34

  —

  1

  —

  —

  505

  179

  —

  684

  Wymott

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  777

  17

  —

  794

  1,135

  1,204

  1

  26

  6

  1

  60,195

  5,684

  21

  65,900

  1Provisional figures

  Tariffs
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek an amendment of the law to allow appeals against tariff lengths by victims or their next of kin. [102182]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no such plans at present. But we are considering other measures to bring victims of crime closer to the heart of the criminal justice system. They include the possibility of allowing victims, or their next of kin, to make statements about the effect a crime has had on them. Such statements would travel with the case papers and be considered at every stage of proceedings.
  166W
  The Probation Service now routinely makes contact with the victims or their immediate family when those responsible for a serious sexual or violent offence are sentenced to four years or more imprisonment.

  Within two months of sentence, the Probation Service contacts the victim, or their immediate family, to ask if they would like to be informed in due course about any plans for the eventual release of the prisoner. If so, the Probation Service explains the custodial process and, in particular, how any decision to release such an offender will be made. Victims or their families are also asked whether they have any particular concerns about proposals for a prisoner's temporary or final release. These views will not affect whether a prisoner is released, but they can affect the conditions attached to the release.

  Police Officer Numbers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of police officers in each police authority in Wales for 1999. [102617]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is collected twice a year (March and September). The figures for September 1999 are not yet available. Information for 31 March 1999 is set out in the table.

  Welsh police forces

  Police numbers as at 31 March 1999

  Dyfed Powys

  1,026

  Gwent

  1,247

  North Wales

  1,391

  South Wales

  2,981

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disability Rights
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to make regulations under the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. [102848]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government have today launched a public consultation on draft Regulations. The Regulations would provide for a statutory time limit for the completion

  Employment service annual performance agreement targets 1999–2000

  April-June1999

  July-September 1999

  Cumulative

  End year target

  Total placings of unemployed jobseekers

  326,714

  374,469

  701,183

  1,250,000

  Variance against profiled target (%)

  0.3

  9.1

  4.8

  —

  Placings of Jobseeker Allowance (JSA) Claimants unemployed for 6 months or more

  51,108

  64,576

  115,684

  190,000

  Variance against profiled target (%)

  4.6

  23.5

  14.3

  —

  Placings of JSA Claimants unemployed for two years or more

  10,106

  13,396

  23,502

  38,000

  Variance against profiled target (%)

  4.6

  26.2

  15.9

  —

  Placings of Jobseekers on the New Deal for 18–24 year olds1

  25,541

  31,813

  57,354

  100,000

  Variance against profiled target (%)

  4.1

  15.7

  10.3

  —

  New Deal for Lone Parent Placings1

  4,002

  5,247

  9,249

  15,000

  Variance against profiled target (%)

  5.5

  47.8

  25.9

  —

  Placings of Unemployed People with Disabilities

  24,719

  26,449

  51,168

  85,000

  Variance against profiled target (%)

  7.0

  15.2

  11.1

  —

  To ensure the correct application of JSA processes by ES staff2 (%)

  81

  83

  82

  96

  Customer Service for jobseekers (%)

  86.3

  88

  87.2

  87

  1 Based on Employment Service (ES) performance information, which records New Deal for Young People and New Deal for Lone Parents job placings achieved directly by, or in partnership with the ES. This will vary from Government Statistical Services (GSS) statistics for New Deal which record the total number of New Deal participants who have found work through the New Deal.

  2 The ES aim to achieve 90 per cent., 92 per cent. and 94 per cent. in the first three Quarters of the year.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the final costs of higher education delivery was accounted for by staffing costs in the most recent year for which information is available. [102462]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest figures, covering the 1997–98, academic year, show that staffing costs in UK higher education institutions represented 57 per cent. of total institutional expenditure.
  168W
  of formal investigations undertaken by the Disability Rights Commission. They would also specify the time in which the DRC must consider, and reach a decision on, the adequacy of an action plan proposed to it by an organisation in receipt of a non-discrimination notice.

  A consultation pack is being sent to 150 organisations in England, Scotland and Wales. The pack will also be available on the DfEE Internet site and in a number of alternative formats.

  The consultation ends on 18 February 2000.

  Performance Targets
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress the Employment Service has made towards its Annual Performance Agreement targets over the period April to September. [102902]

  Ms Jowell
  I am pleased to announce that for the period from April to September 1999 the Employment Service has exceeded planned performance levels for seven of the eight Annual Performance Agreement targets. I set out in the following table the performance of the Agency for Quarters one and two and cumulative performance to September.

  As part of our commitment to modern and accessible public services, I have asked the Chief Executive of the Agency to publish the Employment Service's quarterly results on the Employment Service Internet website which can be found at www.employmentservice.gov.uk. The results will normally be made available within four weeks of the end of the statistical period.

  Standards and Effectiveness Unit
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the employment status of the Head of the Standards and Effectiveness Unit at the Department for Education and Employment. [102195]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The Secretary of State appointed Professor Michael Barber as his Schools Standards and Effectiveness Adviser. He is employed on Special Adviser terms.

  Head Teachers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications have been received from head teachers for early retirement under the Government's proposals; and if he will list the criteria under which these applications will be determined. [102613]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Just under 300 applications have been received from Local Education Authorities for those Headteachers who they believe meet the criteria set down in the Standards Fund circular. The scheme's criteria are:
  aged 55–59 at proposed date of retirement;
  has served continuously as a Headteacher in one or more posts for at least five years and has provided satisfactory service;

  unlikely to adapt well to carrying forward the major changes envisaged in improving education.

  LEAs were asked to provide Ofsted reports and other evidence to confirm that the application met the criteria.

  UK domiciled entrants to undergraduate courses in England

  Year of entry1

  Total entrants

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Of which, those who were: Mature2

  Male

  Female

  1990

  329,183

  192,508

  136,675

  161,143

  178,427

  150,756

  1991

  377,744

  232,406

  145,338

  189,775

  202,654

  175,090

  1992

  415,568

  271,515

  144,053

  213,990

  218,156

  197,412

  1993

  437,206

  290,731

  146,493

  230,357

  227,326

  209,880

  1994

  460,814

  285,354

  175,460

  253,862

  229,215

  231,599

  1995

  477,556

  286,515

  191,041

  270,140

  227,155

  250,401

  1996

  476,245

  286,128

  190,117

  267,049

  221,976

  254,269

  1997

  484,070

  297,190

  186,880

  260,123

  221,159

  262,911

  19983

  481,705

  288,566

  193,139

  257,857

  216,935

  264,770

  1Figures for 1994 and later years were collected on a different basis to those in earlier years.

  2 Aged 21 and over.

  3 Provisional.

  Year of entry1

  Total undergraduate entrants with known ethnicity

  Of which: from ethnic minorities2

  1990

  277,748

  39,336

  1991

  319,427

  44,126

  1992

  342,121

  43,677

  1993

  364,575

  56,845

  1994

  380,376

  51,432

  1995

  394,886

  56,049

  1996

  415,763

  61,262

  1997

  426,734

  64,224

  19981

  428,631

  63,437

  1 Figures for 1994 and later years were collected on a different basis to those in earlier years.

  2 Covers the following ethnic groups: Black Caribbean, Black African, Black other, Asian Indian, Asian Pakistani, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian Chinese, Asian other, Other (non-white) ethnic origin.

  3 Provisional

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for the 1998–99 academic year, what (i) number and (ii) percentage of full-time students enrolled in higher education institutions in England were assessed as being required to pay(a) the full tuition fee, (b) no tuition fee and (c) some tuition fee. [101947]

  "The Rights of Teachers"
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the responses to the consultation paper, "The General Teaching Council for England: The Rights of Teachers" and the Government's conclusions. [102772]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to publish the results of the consultation on the register of teachers and the Government's response by the end of January 2000.

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for students enrolling in higher education institutions in England in each year since 1990, the number of(a) full-time, (b) part-time, (c) mature, (d) male (e) female and (f) ethnic minority students; and what was the total enrolment. [101948]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The information is shown in the following table.

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The first data on Local Education Authority financial support for the student tuition fees introduced in 1998–99 will be available in April 2000 from returns collected retrospectively from Local Education Authorities in England and Wales.

  These data will show the number of locally-domiciled students who, after income assessment, paid their own tuition fees in full; have had their fees paid (i) in full; and (ii) in part by their Local Education Authority.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much each local authority in England and Wales spent on education in 1998–99(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the authority's total budget. [102313]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Expenditure figures for each authority in England for 1998–99 are not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library. Responsibility for education matters in Wales rests with the National Assembly for Wales.

  Class Sizes (Essex)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils in infant classes in Essex schools were in classes of 30 or over in September 1999; what percentage of infant pupils this represents; and what the change in the percentage was from September 1998. [101958]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information shows that, in September 1999, there were 4,972 pupils in infant classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher in the Essex local education authority area. This figure represents 13 per cent. of all pupils in infant classes taught by one teacher in that area. Since September 1998, the number of pupils in infant classes of 31 or more in Essex has fallen by 39 per cent.

  Education Spending (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the(a) education standard spending assessment and (b) outturn education spending for Staffordshire local education authority for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99, per (1) primary pupil and (2) secondary pupil. [101959]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out, for Staffordshire local education authority, per primary pupil and secondary pupil, the education standard spending assessment and outturn education spending for 1997–98. Figures for 1998–99 are not yet available. I will write to my hon. Friend when the figures he requests are available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  £

  Per primary pupil

  Per secondary pupil

  Education SSA

  1997–98

  1,935

  2,533

  1998–99

  2,037

  2,653

  Net institutional expenditure

  1997–98

  1,575

  2,115

  Note:

  Net institutional outturn figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on revenue outturn form R01. The ROI and SSA figures have a different coverage and are not directly comparable.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow(a) individual schools and (b) groups of schools within a local education authority to bid for resources from the Standards Fund where the LEA has declined to do so. [101909]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Standards Fund is paid under powers conferred upon the Secretary of State by the Education Act 1996. Section 484 of that Act enables the Secretary of State to pay education standards grants to local education authorities in respect of eligible expenditure incurred or to be incurred by them.

  Infant Class Sizes (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many infant pupils were 172W
  in classes of over 30 taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in Worcestershire in (a) September 1996 and (b) September 1997. [101503]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on infant class sizes in September has only been collected since 1998.

  Between September 1998 and September 1999 the number of infants in Worcestershire in classes of 31 or more fell from 3,156 (18 per cent. of total) to 1,962 (or 11 per cent. of total).

  Prior to local government re-organisation in April 1998 maintained primary schools in Worcestershire formed part of the local education authority of 'Hereford and Worcester'.

  New Deal
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many sustained unsubsidised jobs of 13 weeks or more employment have so far been found by participants on the New Deal for Lone Parents. [102105]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Latest figures to the end of September 1999 show that 23,000 lone parents have gained unsubsidised jobs through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the launch of the full national programme on 26 October 1998. The issue of sustained employment is being addressed as part of the quantitative evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  English Teaching
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to require local councils to provide specialist schools to teach English to children who are unable to speak it and to prepare them for admission to state schools. [102629]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. The Government do not favour the introduction of such schools which would deny the children attending them access to the full National Curriculum, which is their entitlement.

  The Government are providing additional support to schools and local education authorities for children learning English as an additional language. For 2000–01, £162.5 million will be available from the Standards Fund.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of nursery classes in primary schools with(a) 31 or more pupils and (b) 36 or more pupils in (i) January 1993 and (ii) January 1994. [102519]

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

  Percentage of nursery classes in maintained primary schools taught by one teacher by size: 1993–94—England

  Percentage of nursery classes

  Position as at January

  of size 31 or more

  of size 36 or more

  1994

  19

  13

  1993

  21

  16

  173W
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of classes at Key Stage Two with 31 or more pupils in(a) January 1993, (b) January 1994 and (c) January 1995. [102521]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the size of key stage two classes is available only from 1996 onwards.

  The percentage of primary classes in England with 31 or more pupils taught by one teacher was as follows:
  Position as at January
  1995: 24.4 per cent.
  1994: 23.2 per cent.
  1993: 21.6 per cent.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the percentage of secondary school classes with(a) 31 or more pupils and (b) 36 or more pupils in January (i) 1990, (ii) 1991, (iii) 1992, (iv) 1993 and (v) 1994. [102520]

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

  Percentage of classes taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools by size: 1990–1994 England

  Position as a January

  Percentage of classes with 31 or more pupils

  Percentage of classes with 36 or more pupils

  1994

  5.3

  0.1

  1995

  4.9

  0.1

  1996

  4.5

  0.1

  1997

  4.1

  0.1

  1998

  4.1

  0.1

  School Funding
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 29 November 1999,Official Report, column 48W, what is the breakdown of funding by (a) LEA and (b) pupil, that comes through the (i) Standard Spending Assessment and (ii) Standards Fund for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99; and what are the projected figures for (x) 1999–2000 and (y) 2000–01. [101860]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 December 1999]: I will place tables in the Library that show the breakdown of funding by LEA and per pupil through the Standard Spending Assessment. SSA figures for 2000–01 are provisional. Standards Fund allocations by LEA are also given in the tables for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000. Standards Fund allocations for 2000–01 will not be available until the new year. It is not possible to disaggregate Standards Fund allocations between different age groups. Standards Fund allocations are not made on a per pupil basis.

  Skills Improvement
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to improve basic skill levels among the adult population, with particular reference to the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. [102145]
  174W
  Mr. Wicks
  The Government announced the first steps of a national crusade to improve adult basic skills on 5 November in the light of the Moser Report, "A Fresh Start". Key measures include a national basic skills curriculum based on new standards, national testing, intensive training for basic skills teachers, an expansion of basic skills learning in the community and in the workplace, and improved screening and support for unemployed people. Further details of the Government's action to date are set out in the "Better Basic Skills" pamphlet available on the lifelong learning website—www.lifelonglearning.dfee.gov.uk. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment plans to announce the Government's full strategy to help adults with poor basic skills next year.

  Government support to improve adult basic skills in Sefton currently includes funding through the DfEE's Standards Fund for Family Literacy and Numeracy, and support for community-based basic skills projects through the Adult and Community Learning Fund. Further details about adult basic skills initiatives in Sefton and the pamphlet referred to are being sent to my hon. Friend.

  "Learning to Succeed"
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he has had to the consultation on post-16 learning, following the publication of the White Paper, "Learning to Succeed"; and if he will make a statement. [102745]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We have received over 1,000 responses to the consultation about "Learning to Succeed". These responses have shown overwhelming support for our proposals to establish a new system of post-16 learning which is coherent, accessible and responsive to the needs of individuals, companies and communities.

  The White Paper sets out our plans for introducing a new Learning and Skills Council for England. I am today publishing a Prospectus which sets out in more detail the way the new Council will work. The new Council will have a budget of around £6 billion and be responsible for almost six million learners. It will establish a strong national framework to lead the drive to meeting national targets, with substantial local flexibility for the 47 local Councils which I announced on 29 October. The local LSCs will ensure that the needs of local communities, including employers and individuals, are met. They will have significant resources to deliver these responsibilities including allocation of the great majority of the LSC's funds. This will include responsibility for a range of local discretionary budgets which will amount to around 10–15 per cent. of the LSC's total budget.

  The new Council will ensure that post-16 learning offers excellence with diversity, so that the highest possible standards of provision are consistently secured for the needs of individuals and businesses. In this way, the Learning and Skills Council will be at the centre of the Government's drive to raise skill levels, increase the employability of individuals, and secure the competitiveness of UK business.

  In the consultation paper on school sixth form funding that was published with "Learning to Succeed" we invited views on whether local education authorities should be funded by the Learning and Skills Council for school sixth

  175W
  form provision, or whether they should continue to be funded through the current local government finance system. In the light of the comments received, in particular from headteachers, we have decided that LEAs should in future receive their sixth form funds via the Learning and Skills Council, with schools continuing to receive the funds from their local education authority. For 16 to 19-year-olds, schools and colleges often deliver the same type of teaching, curriculum and qualifications. The LSC's involvement will ensure a coherent approach to post-16 provision, helping to support high national standards and greater local collaboration. There will be safeguards so that a school's sixth form budget will not reduce in real terms provided numbers are maintained. We do not expect to introduce this change in funding arrangements before 2002–03 and will be consulting LEAs, schools and others shortly on the timing, phasing and implementation of the change.

  Schools with sixth forms will play a vital role in the drive to increase success for all our young people. We also want to encourage new forms of provision to meet the needs of young people and to ensure that patterns of provision best serve local needs. We therefore intend to lift the legal bar on the creation of LEA-maintained 16–19 institutions imposed by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Subject to the passage of legislation, LEAs and other promoters will all be able to propose the creation of LEA-maintained 16–19 institutions. The LSC will also be able to propose the establishment of new LSC-maintained sixth form colleges. In addition, FE colleges will continue to be able to set up their own bespoke sixth form provision where there is a demand for this locally. These arrangements will put in the hands of local communities options for raising standards and providing the choices and curriculum breadth young people need and want as we enter the next century.

  Through the Learning and Skills Council and the complementary initiatives we are taking at other levels of education, we are determined to raise people's aspirations, improve standards and greatly extend opportunities for lifelong learning to all. The setting up of the Learning and Skills Council is also part of our wider efforts to prepare everyone in this country for their full participation in a knowledge-driven economy and modern, democratic society.

  Copies of the Prospectus are available in the Vote Office. A full analysis of the responses to the consultation will be published in the new year. The proposals in the White Paper and the Prospectus remain subject to the passage of legislation which was announced in the Queen's Speech.

HEALTH

  Drugs (Price Increases)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of increase in the price of drugs prescribed generically by the NHS in each of the last three years, indicating the 10 drugs which have shown the highest rate of increase and what that rate has been in each case. [100847]
  176W
  Ms Stuart
  The available information is set out in the tables:

  Level of increase in price of drugs prescribed generically by the National Health Service in each of the last three years

  Price index

  Annual increase in prices

  1996

  100

  n/a

  1997

  100.3

  0.3 per cent.

  1998

  96.8

  —3.5 per cent.

  1999

  105.2

  8.7 per cent.

  Note:

  The price index is based on those 90 drugs within the top 100 generic drugs by net ingredient cost in 1998 which were dispensed in each year between January 1996 and June 1999. Prices of individual drugs have been weighted using quantities dispensed in 1998. Data for 1999 is based on prescriptions dispensed in the first half of the year.

  Top 10 generic drugs with greatest increase in unit reimbursement price between 1996 and 1997

  Drug name

  Percentage change in unit price

  Warfarin Sod Tab 1 mg

  222.8

  Warfarin Sod Tab 3mg

  218.2

  Frusemide Tab 40mg

  34.8

  Diclofenac Sod Tab E/C 50mg

  31.7

  Glibenclamide Tab 5mg

  25.6

  Bendrofluazide Tab 2.5mg

  13.1

  Thyroxine Sod Tab 25mcg

  9.9

  Co-Codamol Eff Tab 8mg/500mg

  8.0

  Cimetidine Tab 400mg

  7.4

  Dihydrocodeine Tart Tab 30mg

  7.2

  Top 10 generic drugs with greatest increase in unit reimbursement price between 1997 and 1998

  Drug name

  Percentage change in unit price

  Erythromycin Tab E/C 250mg

  34.4

  Amoxycillin Cap 250mg

  24.1

  Hypromellose Eye Dps 0.3%

  17.6

  Oxytetracycline Tab 250mg

  16.9

  Co-Codamol Eff Tab 8mg/500mg

  8.8

  Ibuprofen Tab 400mg

  8.5

  Amoxycillin Oral Susp 250mg/5m1

  6.3

  Co-Amilofruse Tab 2.5mg/20mg

  6.1

  Hydroxocobalamin Inj lmg/lml Amp

  6.0

  Amoxycillin Oral Susp 125mg/5m1

  5.2

  Notes:

  1. The top 10 generic drugs with the greatest increase in each table were selected from the top 100 generic drugs in terms of net ingredient cost in the review period.

  2. The prescription information was obtained from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists, and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered, in England.

  3. The unit prices are averages calculated for each preparation from the net ingredient cost and the quantity in each period.

  4. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  177W

  Top 10 drugs (from top 100 generics in terms of net ingredient cost in 1998) with greatest per cent. increase in Drug Tariff price between January and December 1999

  Preparation

  Per cent. change in unit price1

  Bendrofluazide tablets 2.5mg

  988.2

  Frusemide tablets 40mg

  711.7

  Ibuprofen tablets 400mg

  315.4

  Tamoxifen tablets 20mg

  216.8

  Cimetidine tablets 400mg

  213.9

  Thyroxine tablets 25mcg

  175.2

  Captopri I tablets 12.5mg

  171.3

  Amoxycillin capsules 250mg

  143.1

  Warfarin tablets 3mg

  127.1

  Co-dydramol tablets 10/500

  125.9

  1 January-December 1999

  Note:

  Prices have been taken from the printed Drug Tariff (except December 1999 from PPA spreadsheet) and are therefore on a different basis to those quoted for earlier years which have been derived from prescriptions already dispensed and processed.

  HRT
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the NHS of charging a single prescription charge for HRT prescriptions which specify more than one hormone replacement. [98763]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: It is estimated that around £6 million in charge income would be lost if a single prescription charge was paid when more than one hormone in hormone replacement therapy was supplied by community pharmacists in England.

TREASURY

  Pensions Annuities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statutory provisions govern the type of securities which underpin private pension annuities; and what plans he has to review those provisions. [102446]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Insurance Companies Act 1982 and associated regulations require insurance companies to maintain appropriate assets to match their liabilities. Companies base their decisions on asset allocation on advice from their appointed actuaries. In practice, this usually means that annuity liabilities are matched by high quality longer term and low-risk, near cash instruments, often gilt-edged securities.

  Citizens Panel
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the questions submitted by his Department for inclusion in the next wave of questions for the Cabinet Office's Citizens Panel. [102322]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Questions to help judge the responsiveness of services to consumers are under consideration for the People's Panel. To ensure the representativeness of the survey, questions are not published in advance. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, will write to the hon. Member with
  178W
  the relevant questions once the fieldwork is complete. Questions are made public when the results are published and copies will be placed in the House of Commons Library at that point.

  Departmental Expenditure (Windfall Tax)
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the overall 1999–2000 Departmental Expenditure Limit for expenditure financed by the Windfall Tax. [102903]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The overall Departmental Expenditure Limit for expenditure financed by the Windfall tax will be increased by £43,454,000 from £1,491,839,000 to £1,535,293,000. The increase is the effect of the take up of end year flexibility entitlements announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999,Official Report, column 393W, by the Department for Education and Employment (£38,654,000); the Prison Service (£173,000); the Department of Social Security (£3,378,000); the Scottish Executive (–460,000) and the National Assembly for Wales (–789,000).

  The individual elements of the increase have already been announced but the impact on the overall limit has not. The increases will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish a report on UK operations at the International Monetary Fund. [102986]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I am today publishing the first Annual Report to Parliament on UK operations at the IMF. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what analysis his Department has made of the potential impact on Government revenues of a reduction in the duty on beer. [102825]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The potential impact on Government revenues of a change in beer duty is shown in Table 6 of the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs, published by HM Treasury in November of this year.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements(a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department have put in place for the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside his Department. [102375]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Records are kept of meetings attended by Treasury Ministers as the occasions demand.

  Professional Contractors Group
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will hold a further consultation with the Professional Contractors Group over the proposed change in the definition of employment status. [102764]
  179W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I met representatives of the Professional Contractors Group on 9 December. We have no plans to change the definition of employment status.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families will benefit from the working families tax credit by constituency. [102591]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of the Working Families' Tax Credit by constituency are not yet available.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage pregnancies there were in each constituency in each of the past 10 years. [102616]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 14 December 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on teenage pregnancies by constituency.
  The information requested would only be available at a disproportionate cost. Figures for health authority areas are published annually.

  Financial Services Authority
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the projected costs of the Financial Services Authority for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [102753]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Full details for 1999–2000 are available in the Plan and Budget published by the FSA in February, copies of which are available in the Library. The budget for 2000–2001, with revised estimates for costs for 1999–2000, will be published by the FSA early in February 2000.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each of the buildings under his Department's control how many rooms are set aside for(a) ethnic minority religious use, (b) pregnant and nursing mothers and (c) smokers. [102327]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not held centrally for the buildings under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments. It could therefore be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Export Subsidies
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the expenditure by the EU and by member states of that organisation in subsidising the export of food to nations outwith the EU in the most recent year for which such figures are available. [102630]
  180W
  Ms Quin
  In the 1998 budget year expenditure on export refunds under the Common Agricultural Policy to non-EU countries was 4.8 billion ecu. This was from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, there being no expenditure by individual member states on export refunds.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to lift the beef on the bone ban. [101126]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister's statement to the House on 30 November 1999,Official Report, column 151W. Subject to the outcome of the statutory consultation now under way, 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.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how much will be paid to British farmers in 1999–2000 in support of their incomes by(a) the European Union and (b) the British Government; and if he will make a statement. [102223]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Forecast figures for 1999–2000 are unavailable. "Agriculture in the UK 1999", which will show estimates of payments to farmers in 1999, will be published on 16 March 2000.

  Farm-assured Schemes
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with European Union agriculture ministers about the level of regulation of farm assured schemes; what assessment he has made of the extent to which rules governing such schemes are being followed in other EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [102221]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: None. Assurance schemes are framed by industry in the light of local circumstances.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations exist to ensure that food labelling is not misleading(a) generally and (b) regarding content and country of origin; and if he will make a statement. [102224]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: (a) The Food Safety Act 1990 makes it an offence for anyone selling a food product to describe it in a way which is false or likely to mislead the consumer as to its nature, substance or quality. It is also an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for a product to carry a false or misleading description.

  (b) The Food Labelling Regulations 1996 (as amended) require labels to contain quite detailed information about the product, including its name and a list of ingredients.

  181W
  Place of origin marking is required where failure to provide it may mislead the purchaser as to the product's true origin.

  We are consulting interested parties on draft guidelines which emphasises the need to ensure that, where origin markings are provided, they are accurate and do not mislead consumers.

  Over-thirty-months Scheme
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he plans to have with EU agriculture ministers about the Over-thirty-months Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [102219]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: No such discussions are planned. In due course it may be appropriate to discuss the Over-thirty-month Scheme with European partners following advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee on the over-thirtymonth rule.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the Government's consultation paper concerning the future of the Agricultural Wages Board. [102564]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: As part of the Government's quinquennial review programme, a Consultation Paper on the Future Rationale for statutory Wage and Other Controls in Agriculture and the Operation of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Wages Committee was published on 6 December. Copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses. Comments are
  required by 31 March 2000.

  Departmental Meat Supplies
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the country of origin of meat sold in his Department's buildings in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [102457]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: All my Department's catering facilities are run by contractors. Where they source their purchases is a matter for them. We have urged them wherever possible to buy British meat which we and they know makes commercial sense.

  Plant Health Guide
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department will publish a revised plant health guide for importers. [101733]

  Ms Quin
  The current edition of the Guide was published in October 1998. A revised edition will be published when required to reflect significant changes in plant health legislation.

  Thatching Reeds
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Department gives to encourage the production and harvesting of the reeds required for thatching roofs. [101893]
  182W
  Ms Quin
  This Department provides some payments under its agri-environment schemes for the creation, restoration and management of reedbeds as a habitat. This is not confined to reeds used for thatching. The Countryside Stewardship Scheme, Avalon Marshes Special Project, however, specifically targets the creation of reedbeds to be used for thatching.

  MAFF, along with EU, The Broads Authority, English Nature, Anglian water and the RSPB, are involved in funding a research and development project aimed at establishing and demonstrating new machinery and techniques for managing wetland reedbeds and fens. The result of this work may provide techniques which benefit the production of reeds for thatching.

  The Rural Enterprise Scheme, part of the package of measures under the Rural Development regulation announced by the Minister on 7 December, will provide support for a range of rural activities including renovation and development of villages and protection and conservation of the rural heritage; and encouragement for tourism and craft activities. The detailed operation of this scheme has yet to be finalised but the support provided might include various aspects of the production, harvesting and use of reeds.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs are equipped to deal with the slaughter of organically reared animals; and what are their locations. [101146]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: 29 abattoirs in England are registered with approved organic inspection bodies to slaughter organically reared animals. They are distributed widely throughout the country.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many operating abattoirs there were in each year from 1 May 1969 to 1 May 1999 inclusive. [101148]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 4 December 1999]: At 1 May 1999 there were 477 licensed slaughterhouses in England (350 red meat and 127 poultry meat). The table gives end year figures of licensed red meat slaughterhouses for each year from 1975 to 1998. Also shown are the end year figures of licensed poultry meat slaughterhouses from 1983 to 1998. Prior to 1993, slaughterhouses in England were not licensed by MAFF, but by local authorities. The figures for 1975 to 1992 have therefore been derived from records of State Veterinary Service visits during each year and are approximate. No figures are available prior to 1975. For poultry meat slaughterhouses, no figures are available prior to 1983. It is not possible to identify how many of the licensed slaughterhouses detailed were operating at any given period.

  Year1

  Red meat

  Poultry meat

  1975

  1,385

  —

  1976

  1,320

  —

  1977

  1,280

  —

  1978

  1,145

  —

  1979

  975

  —

  1980

  960

  —

  1981

  910

  —

  183W

  Year1

  Red meat

  Poultry meat

  1982

  840

  —

  1983

  875

  111

  1984

  860

  108

  1985

  850

  108

  1986

  815

  102

  1987

  795

  104

  1988

  780

  104

  1989

  690

  107

  1990

  645

  98

  1991

  595

  98

  1992

  540

  93

  1993

  434

  98

  1994

  424

  137

  1995

  402

  144

  1996

  384

  144

  1997

  375

  131

  1998

  360

  131

  1999

  350

  127

  1 As at 31 December

  2 As at 31 May

  Petsmart
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the trading practices of Petsmart; and what response he has made. [102759]

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

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has to date not received any representations on the trading practices of Petsmart.

  Cardboard Egg Boxes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the re-use of cardboard egg boxes; and if he will make a statement. [101701]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: EU egg marketing regulations cover the labelling and use of egg boxes. To ensure the consumer is not misled the regulations do not permit the re-use of small packs because of the difficulty of ensuring the obliteration and re-printing of the information they are required to carry.

  BSE
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the research into the causes of BSE in cattle that has been published by Professor Alan Ebringer and Professor John Pirt of King's College, London. [101700]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: Professors Ebringer, Pirt and others have published two papers postulating a possible alternative theory of autoimmunity for BSE in cattle and multiple sclerosis in man. In the third and latest paper, from a small study funded by MAFF, they report elevated levels of antibodies against brain components in the sera of BSE-affected cattle. Professor Ebringer claims that this supports his alternative theory for BSE. The work funded by MAFF should go some way to provide scientifically based information either to support or refute this theory.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will publish the recent reports he has received about welfare standards in the Dutch pig industry; and if he will make a statement. [101699]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: I am aware both of a survey report on the website of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture about compliance levels with Dutch pig welfare rules and of a booklet setting out new Dutch welfare rules for pigs. Publication of both the booklet and the material on the website is a matter for the Dutch authorities. I have not formally been sent copies of these documents but both the Prime Minister and I have received letters from the Dutch Meat Board about their pork quality assurance scheme.

  Beef Sales
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the budget for the promotion campaign of British beef abroad being led by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin). [102061]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will lead a team to target several key markets to try to agree the export health certification necessary to allow imports of British beef. The cost of this will be met from existing budgets, as part of our ongoing activities to get import bans lifted around the world.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the meat and meat offal of bovine animals exported in 1995 would be eligible for export under the Date-Based Export Scheme. [102060]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: None. It is a fundamental condition of the Date Based Export Scheme that among other things the animals from which beef for export is derived must have been born after 1 August 1996.

  GM Foods
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list research funded by his Department into GM food and crops giving(a) the research project title, (b) the project reference number, (c) the research contractors, (d) the date on which the research was completed or is due to be completed and (e) the date on which the results will be published. [101751]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: Research projects funded by my Department and relevant to genetic modification are listed in a table which has been placed in the Library. The research aims to further the understanding of the safety of genetically modified foods and of the risks genetically modified crops might pose to the agricultural environment. The research also underpins the science needed to understand gene function and to improve the technology of genetic modification, for example by limiting gene expression to specific plant

  185W
  tissues or improving stability of genes. Final reports of the projects are listed on the MAFF website usually within three months of the end of the project, the results of the research are also published in the scientific literature.

  Overproduction
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which items of food are subject to overproduction within the EU; what quantities are involved; and what the change in the situation has been in the last year. [102631]

  Ms Quin
  The figures for food put into EU public intervention together with the percentage change in intervention stocks over the last 12 months are shown in the following table.
  186W

  Changes in levels of major intervention stocks over the last 12 months in the EU

  Intervention stocks(thousand tonnes)

  Commodity

  1998

  1999

  Percentage change

  Reference date

  Beef

  477

  226

  —53

  July

  Cereals (Total)

  11,809

  12,737

  8

  October

  Barley

  6,707

  4,971

  —26

  October

  Durum

  0

  0

  0

  October

  Maize

  712

  44

  —94

  October

  Rye

  2,399

  3,104

  29

  October

  Wheat

  1,983

  4,569

  130

  October

  Dairy Products

  Butter

  4

  48

  1,100

  October

  Skimmed Milk Powder

  205

  226

  10

  October

  Olive Oil

  100

  25

  —75

  October

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

UK Trade Exports: Destination Statistics
Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take into account the final destination of goods, as opposed to their transit destination, when calculating the figures by country for the United Kingdom's trade exports; and whether they will consider altering the relevant Customs forms to accommodate this.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is the department responsible for collecting and recording trade statistics on the movement of goods with other countries. The UK's export statistics are produced by Customs on the basis of the declared final country of destination and that approach is reflected in Customs forms at present.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Government will wish to avoid distorted decision-making. Therefore, is the noble Lord aware that approximately 45 per cent of Britain's official figures are affected by the entrepôt factor which affects our country league tables, our bilateral relations, direction of effort, general policy and resource decision-making in all government departments?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is not correct. He refers to entrepôts, by which I assume he is referring to places such as Rotterdam and Antwerp and places outside the European Union. When goods are exported to a final destination via Rotterdam, Antwerp or any other entrepôt, it is the final destination, not the entrepôt, which is recorded on the forms. The export trade statistics are therefore correct.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, touches on a key point and one which has involved the Government being criticised by a long list of complainants about the way in which the Government have used statistics, including in recent months the OECD, the Treasury Select Committee and only today the All-Party Agriculture Committee of another place? Will he reconsider the offer which I made him last week; namely, that that surely could be one area at least in which the parties could co-operate to ensure that government statictics are beyond the reach of those
118
who would in any way distort them for political purposes? Our three parties could work together in that one area for the benefit of Parliament as a whole.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord is accusing the Government of distorting the statistics. He shied away somewhat from a final accusation. There is no reason to suppose that the government statistics are distorted in any direction. I appreciate that a number of people—notably, Mr Norris McWhirter—who think that because goods are first exported to European Union countries and then on to other destinations, the final destination is not properly recorded and that, therefore, the proportion of our export trade which is with the European Union is incorrect. There is no reason to suppose that that is the case. There is no reason why anybody should declare a wrong final destination unless, of course, those are goods which must be exported on licence. In that case, there is always the motivation for fraud. But if the noble Lord can show me any evidence that the Customs figures are distorted, I shall be pleased to discuss it with him.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord whether he accepts that for Customs declaration purposes, the distinction between final destination and transit destination is strictly relevant to all licensed goods and in particular armaments? I do not suggest improper usage of any forms, but if that is relevant for licensed goods such as armament exports, why should it not be relevant also to other goods?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to rub salt into any Conservative wounds, but it is a fact that there have been occasions in the past when arms exports have been wrongly declared as going to Singapore rather than to their final destination of Iraq. Noble Lords opposite will be aware of that fact and of ministerial involvement in it. Those are the only occasions that I can think of where there is any motivation for declaring other than the true final destination. The port of export, the transit port, is not declared on European Community forms used by Customs and Excise.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, when one considers the re-export of materials and goods to the European Union, the goods which are exported to Rotterdam and Antwerp for onward transmission outside the European Union and the investments made through the Netherlands for tax reasons—the so-called Netherlands distortion—does the Minister accept that that takes us to a figure of only some 10 per cent of our gross domestic product or of our economy which is involved in trade with the European Union at all? If so, does the noble Lord accept that it makes a nonsense of the Prime Minister's often repeated claim that over 50 per cent of our trade lies with the European Union?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, the noble Lord is shying away from quite making an accusation that our export

119
trade statistics are distorted. If he wants to make that accusation and if he wants me to debate it with him, I am happy to do so. In the absence of any such evidence, I repeat that goods which are exported to destinations outside the European Union via Rotterdam, Antwerp or anywhere in the European Union are recorded in our statistics by their country of final destination and not as going through Antwerp or Rotterdam.

Caesarean Sections
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlegeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the rising rate of caesarean sections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Government are concerned about the variation in caesarean rates between hospitals and have an active programme of work in hand to address that and the reasons for the rise in caesarean rates overall. We would expect a decision about whether to perform a caesarean section to be made on the basis of clinical need.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am interested that he feels that there is an issue about the varying rates in different hospitals. First, is he aware of two hospitals which are joining to form a trust, one of which has a caesarean rate of 12 per cent and the other of 20 per cent, and that not far away another hospital has a rate of 29 per cent? Will the Minister take this matter further and tell us how that discrepancy is to be monitored? What influence will he put on those hospitals which have a very high rate of caesarean sections?
Secondly, has the Minister seen the recent research which shows that where there is continuity of care by a midwife of a woman in labour, the intervention rate is low not only in relation to caesarean sections but also in relation to medical interventions? What is the Minister going to do about the appalling haemorrhage of midwives leaving the service?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked a number of questions. The variations are considerable. The Audit Commission report of 1997 found variations of between 10 per cent and 18 per cent in the trusts surveyed. I understand that a 1998–99 survey by the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (ENB) showed even higher variations.
Of course, some variations are explainable due to local factors. It is important that in establishing the variations and the reasons for them we take into account the factors that may arise. In its own guidelines, the WHO accepts that there can be
120
variations due to issues concerned with health, nutritional status and standards of maternity care. Clearly, it is important that local trusts examine their own rates and get to the heart of whether those rates are correct in relation to clinical judgments and the kind of services that women should expect. Of course, I accept that continuity of care is important.
On the recruitment of midwives, the recruitment campaign which started at the beginning of the year is bearing fruit. Over 4,000 nurses and midwives are returning to the profession. We have every reason to believe that as we develop those campaigns more midwives will return.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny recent press reports of several cases concerning London hospitals, including the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, where women who are about to go into labour have been turned away because of the shortage of midwives? Is it not time that the Government got to grips with the issue? Is it not time that the Government issued their long-awaited strategy on maternity services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a limited number of units have been fully booked. In such a situation, women are encouraged to turn to a midwifery unit nearby. Overall, I believe that we are tackling issues in relation to midwife shortages. I have already said that the recruitment campaign which started at the beginning of the year has borne fruit. The recruitment survey for this year shows that for England as a whole we have a 2 per cent midwifery shortage on posts vacant for more than three months. Of course, one cannot be complacent. Our efforts are bearing fruit, but we should be aware of some of the alarmist reports that we have heard in this area.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if a women who is HIV positive is pregnant, it is wise to conduct a caesarean before 38 weeks to stop trauma to the baby and to prevent HIV infection?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not in a position to give clinical guidance in that area this afternoon. I believe that all actions in relation to caesarean sections should be based on the best clinical knowledge. That is one of the reasons that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives are conducting an audit of caesarean sections under the auspices of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. From that we shall expect to have much more effective guidelines in relation to the use of caesarean sections in the future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in these days of extreme litigation, is not a factor that has to be taken into account that, where there is any doubt whatsoever, the clinician may feel obliged to carry out a caesarean section? Has the Minister any evidence on that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, a number of factors relate to the rise in caesarean section rates. Certainly, it is a much safer option than it used to be. The change in the age profile of women having babies has also led to an increase and I believe there is anecdotal evidence of women's own choice in the matter. However, there is no doubt that there have been reports that fear of litigation has had an influence on doctors concerned. That is a matter of regret. We have looked at the practice of defensive medicine in the US and been horrified at the prospect of that in the UK. The result of the audit on which we are working with the Royal Colleges and the development of the guidelines will, I hope, help to ensure that decisions taken for fear of litigation, rather than in the best interests of the women concerned, will not occur in the future.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I doubt that there will ever be another occasion when I shall feel that I can answer the Question better than the Minister! However, I agree with the Minister. It is a fact that caesarean section rates are higher now than they were a decade ago. The factors that operate now are the same as a decade ago, but there are many additional factors now. I agree that the audit—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Patel: My Lords, will the Minister support the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the audit to reduce caesarean sections and reduce the regional variations?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is the kind of question to which I am always happy to agree. I believe that the noble Lord is right to refer to the audit again. It is important that when we make statements and reach conclusions about current practice, they are based on the best possible evidence. I believe that the audit is the best way to obtain the evidence.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am in the Chamber especially because of this Question? I cannot understand why a House made up of old-age pensioners should be involved in childbirth issues. Returning to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is my noble friend aware that women going into Labour have substantially increased in number compared to those going into the Liberal Democrat or Conservative parties week by week? Does my noble friend welcome all those women who join Labour, especially New Labour?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we must always welcome new recruits to the cause of Labour. As for Members of your Lordships' House, it is worth pointing out that the average age of women giving birth has now increased to 29.1 years—a substantial increase over the years.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the serious issue of the Question. I draw the
122
Minister's attention to an interesting paper which was read last night by Professor Richard Feachem under the auspices of the CSE International Lecture. He ascribed some of the increase in the number of caesarean sections to what he described as perverse financial incentives, not on the part of the doctors, but on the part of the trusts which can increase the resources that they can claim because of the number of caesarean sections that they perform. I do not know whether or not that is correct. Is the Minister prepared to look at that evidence from a distinguished source?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would be concerned if any financial regime in operation in the NHS led to perverse incentives in relation to clinical actions. I would be very surprised if that were the case, but I am happy to look into the matter.

Local Authority Social Service Departments
2.48 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What powers they have to influence local authority social services; and whether they intend to use or augment these powers to reduce the disparities between authorities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, under both the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and the Children Act 1989 the Secretary of State has powers to direct authorities to take action where they have failed to comply with statutory duties. The Secretary of State will also have new powers included in the Local Government Act 1999 from 1st April next year. Those will allow the Government to intervene where there are serious or persistent performance failures.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Does he agree that the Government's review of social service departments has exposed the negligence of some of them, especially the more than one in 10 that are failing in their duties to children, disabled people and old people? Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will close down those failing social service departments and transfer their responsibilities to neighbouring local authorities unless they are prepared to improve?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the legal position is that from April next year it will be possible for the Government to transfer responsibility, for the delivery of social service functions to a neighbouring local authority if serious issues arise in relation to the delivery of that service. However, many steps can be taken before that happens.

123
First, inspections by the Social Service Inspectorate should result in a proper audit of the performance of local authorities; secondly, through a voluntary scheme a process can be put in place whereby those authorities requiring special monitoring against agreed action plans are identified. Also, I commend to my noble friend the recent production of performance indicators which allow local authorities to compare the performance of their social service functions with that of others. Those indicators should encourage social service committees to benchmark their performance against that of other local authorities.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, does my noble friend share the unequivocally stated view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that disabled people needing social services in Bermondsey must not be treated less favourably than disabled people with the same needs in Belgrave Square?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important issue in relation to the different policies and priorities of local authorities throughout the country. A balance must be drawn. But we do not want a situation where disabled or other groups of people are being seriously disadvantaged in one local authority area as compared with another. Of course, it is not just a question of resources. Some local authorities are much more effective at spending their pounds than others. The whole approach of using performance indicators will help local authorities assess their performance and enable them to compare it with that of others. I particularly emphasise the role that members of social service committees can play in looking stringently at their performance compared with that of other local authorities.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that he is prepared to take many steps before taking action against local authority social service departments which are proved to be negligent according to the Government's own survey? When he speaks of the inspectorate conducting a review, does that imply that the Government's survey was inadequate? We have the facts; we have the figures. They show gross negligence towards children, disabled and old people. The Government should get on and do something about it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in cases of gross negligence where people may be at risk because of the inadequacy of a local authority, intervention can take place immediately. Intervention is a policy that I am sure all noble Lords will support. Equally, the establishment of performance indicators is one of the tools by which we can measure the performance of local authorities.
124
The inspectorate has an important role in monitoring the performance of local authorities; in drawing the attention of local authorities to specific areas of concern; and, in relation to our ability specifically to monitor the performance of 17 local authorities under special measures, we are provided with an effective way to intervene. I am simply saying that there has to be an effective balance between the requirements of the Government that local authorities behave effectively and provide decent services to people who need them, alongside the local democratic nature of local government and its need to develop its own priorities.
Baroness Masham of Bton: My Lords, if the Government have to intervene, what would be the result? What would happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, at the extreme end, if a local authority is deemed to be seriously failing and there is no indication that it will be able to put that right by itself, from next April the Government will have the ability to transfer the social service function to another local authority. But my substantive point is that, short of that, there are a number of steps we can take to monitor, to agree action plans, and to ensure that local authorities improve their performance in accordance with that agreed action plan.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the Minister talks about powers being transferred from one authority to another. Does that mean that the budget of the authority which is losing the powers will follow the transfer, or will the Government re-budget sufficiently for that social service to be successful?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in extremis, which is when the situation may arise, the key point will be to ensure that the services are provided with a smooth transfer. The Government must ensure that the resource position sufficiently covers that transfer. It would be wrong if, having transferred a service, the local authority which lost that service retained the resources.

Child Curfew Orders
2.55 p.m.
Lord Dholakiaasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many local authorities have applied to the Home Office to invoke the powers to impose curfews on children under 10 following the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, none yet. It is for local authorities to decide whether or not to apply for confirmation of a local child curfew scheme in the light of their work on wider crime and disorder reduction strategies. Local child curfews are an additional measure to use in the fight against youth

125
crime. They are part of a wide range of new interventions such as reparation orders, parenting orders and action plan orders which will help to prevent crime and make young offenders and their parents face up to their actions and responsibilities.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he accept that the reason the police and local authorities do not apply for curfew orders is because curfews do little to prevent crime? The present curfew orders apply to children under 10. Does the Minister accept that those who commit crime on our streets are likely to be much older than that and are therefore unaffected by the provision of curfew orders? Will the Minister also accept that the police have ample powers, if children are found running in the streets at night unsupervised, to use other measures to take them home without resorting to the cumbersome curfew orders?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of useful and valuable points. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary wrote on 15th October to all local authorities and chief constables in England and Wales to solicit their views in relation to the potential effectiveness of child curfew orders. We are beginning to receive responses, and from their content I suspect that the issues raised by the noble Lord will be those that we have to take into further consideration. It is undoubtedly the case that a number of other effective powers we put in place can be made use of by local authorities and the police in dealing with youth disorder, youth offending and youth crime.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister began his answer with the words, "none yet". How long before the Government remove this ridiculous provision from the statute book?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Lord to call it ridiculous; but this provision was asked for by local authorities and the police service. Clearly we keep these matters under review. We try to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures we put in place. We shall continue to keep this under review and, as I said, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already written to local authorities and police services to find out their views on the matter.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the only experiment of this kind has been carried out in Scotland, in Hamilton in the Strathclyde police area? When my noble friend writes to chief constables in England and Wales, will he advise them to consult the Chief Constable of Strathclyde, Mr John Orr, on the outcome of the experiment? I can assure my noble friend that it has been an outstanding success.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those comments. From my recent
126
contact with Strathclyde police I was most impressed by the way in which they conduct operations. Of course we will take on board the views that come back to us from our friends in the north and make sure we reflect on them in the way in which we develop practice in England and Wales.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the scheme may be a success in Hamilton, but it is certainly a flop in England and Wales. Indeed, it is well over a year since these orders became available and they have not been used at all by any local authority. However, in that letter of 15th October, did not the Home Secretary also suggest that he was proposing to change the law so as to permit these curfew orders to be made for children over the age of 10? I believe it has been suggested that that should be extended to cover children up to the age of 16. Will that not cause further trouble for anti-social behaviour orders, which apply to the slightly older age group and which have also been very little used so far, despite being part of what is supposed to be a flagship policy of the Government to tackle youth crime?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his very helpful questions. We shall have to see whether child curfew orders become part and parcel of the apparatus. Clearly they are available and can be used. I note the noble Lord's comments about anti-social behaviour orders. In response, I quote from an article in today's edition of the Daily Mail which refers to a case where someone was arrested 100 times, convicted 55 times and was a "walking crime wave" at the age of just 14. The local authority in question—Nottingham City Council—clearly thought that it was such a serious problem that it decided to make use of the anti-social behaviour order process. Indeed, a number of authorities have now followed that course.
Many of the orders to which I referred earlier are working and are effective in pilot areas only. In managing their crime reduction strategies, it is clearly open to local authorities and the police to make use of a wide range of powers in the fight against crime.

City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Life Peerages (Appointments Commission)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted Prerogative and interest may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present

127
Session of any measure to establish a Commission to make proposals for the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958.—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill significantly updates the Race Relations Act 1976 for the first time in almost 25 years. As set out in the Government's equality Statement made in another place on 30th November and repeated by the Lord Privy Seal in response to a written parliamentary Question from my noble friend Lord Haskel on 2nd December, it is a significant part, but only one aspect, of our wider equality agenda. We want to transform Britain into a society that is inclusive and prosperous, eliminating unjustified discrimination wherever it exists. Making equality of opportunity a reality for all is very much at the heart of our agenda. It is not only inherently right but also essential for Britain's economic and social success.
Our aim is to provide the right legislative and administrative framework to achieve just this. We have made it clear that we will bring forward further legislation to meet the legislative commitments that we have made in response to the CRE and other bodies as soon as parliamentary time permits. Not least, we shall place a statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality. Our aim is to ensure that public authorities set the pace in the drive for equality through leading by example. Therefore, this Bill should be seen and welcomed in that context.
The Bill has three main purposes: to extend the Race Relations Act in relation to public authorities; to make chief officers of police vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers; and to amend an exemption under the Act for acts done for the purposes of safeguarding national security, thus remedying a provision that we think is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The first two proposals implement a government commitment made in response to one of the key recommendations of the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. The report recommended, among other things, that the Race Relations Act should be extended to the police and that chief officers of police should be made vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by police officers.
128
When the report was published, the Government said that they would go further and are now doing so. We are extending provisions of the Act not only to the police but also to the functions of other public authorities—those listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill—that are not currently covered. The Bill therefore tackles gaps in coverage which were left when the 1976 Act was introduced, or which have been found through the case law.
The Commission for Racial Equality, in its third review of the Race Relations Act, also recommended that the Act should be extended in respect of public services, as, indeed, did the Better Regulation Task Force. So I am pleased to say that the Bill also meets a commitment made by the Government in response to both the CRE and the Better Regulation Task Force.
I anticipate that noble Lords will wish to focus their initial deliberations on the first of the three aspects of the Bill. Therefore, it is to this that I turn first. However, before describing what the Bill will do, I should like to describe what the existing legislation—the Race Relations Act 1976—does now. It is difficult to understand the one without the other.
As your Lordships will know, we have in this country a Race Relations Act that is now almost 25 years old. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will be particularly familiar with that piece of legislation. Indeed, he was very instrumental in getting it on to the statute book. I pay great tribute to him because the Act has, by and large, stood the test of time and has made a highly significant contribution to improving the quality of race relations in our country. That fact should not be overlooked.
The Act makes it unlawful to discriminate on racial grounds in relation to employment, training and education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, and certain other specified activities. It provides for individuals who have been discriminated against to bring proceedings and claim damages in employment tribunals or designated county courts. It also established the Commission for Racial Equality, giving it independent strategic investigating and enforcement powers.
The Act does not generally apply to functions other than those I have mentioned—namely, employment, training and education and the provision of goods, facilities and services—so there are gaps in the Act's coverage in relation to public authorities. Further, the precise distinction between functions that are covered and those which are not is unclear and is only clarified in particular cases, and in a piecemeal fashion, by decisions of the courts. I shall give your Lordships an example. In relation to goods, facilities and services, it has been found by the courts to apply in respect of public authorities only where the act done is at least similar to an act that could be done by a private person. We also know that the Act does not apply to the functions of immigration control and law enforcement. The case law that I particularly have in mind is Rv. Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay ex parte Amin [1983] and Farah v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1997]. This Bill addresses those gaps.

129
Clause 1 of the Bill extends the Race Relations Act by inserting new Sections 19B, 19C and 19D into Part III of the Act. I shall say something about each in turn. New Section 19B will make it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate directly against a person, or to victimise a person, on racial grounds in carrying out any of its functions. This provision applies to all functions that are not already covered by the existing provisions of the Act; in other words, where functions are already covered by another provision of the Act, that coverage will not change.
The new section will have very wide application. For the purposes of the section, "public authorities" will be those bodies, or classes of body, listed in a new schedule to the Act. The schedule lists the main central and local government bodies, including the police. Ministers of the Crown, government officials, law enforcers and other office holders will all be covered.
Your Lordships may notice that there are some exemptions and omissions to the list of public authorities. I should like to assuage any concerns that your Lordships may have on this point. In most cases omissions have been made for one of two reasons.
First, there are some bodies whose functions are clearly already covered by the current Race Relations Act. Educational bodies are an obvious example. Secondly, the schedule does not include those public bodies usually known as non-departmental public bodies or quangos. It is intended that where it is established in consultation with such bodies that they have functions that are not already covered by the Act, they too will be added to the list of public authorities by order.
Generally, victims of discrimination under the new Section 19B will be able to bring proceedings in a designated country court, or, in Scotland, a sheriff court, in the same way as for existing non-employment cases under the Act. The only exception will be for claims which are, relevant to the immigration and asylum cases to be heard under the one-stop procedure established under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, about which I shall say more later.
I anticipate that your Lordships will be interested to know why the Government are proposing that the new section should cover direct discrimination and victimisation but not indirect discrimination. The Government did not take this decision lightly. We reached it for many of the reasons that we concluded that it would have been inappropriate to include indirect discrimination in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 when that legislation was before us in the second parliamentary Session.
I feel privileged in explaining what I am about to say in the presence of so many of your Lordships who know and understand this legislation all too well from experience and perhaps better than I. However, I shall persist for the sake of completeness. I am sure your Lordships will agree that direct discrimination is where a person treats a person less favourably than he treats or would treat other people. Indirect discrimination is treatment that may be described as equal in a formal sense but that is discriminatory in its
130
effect on a particular group. It occurs when a requirement or condition is applied equally to all, but the proportion of one group that can comply is considerably smaller than the proportion of another group that can comply.
To outlaw indirect discrimination in all the functions to be newly covered by the Act would have uncertain and potentially far-reaching effects on the Government's ability to make policy. Any policy or practice that had a differential impact on different racial groups because of a requirement or condition could be challenged in the courts. That could potentially include any age-based policy because of the different demographic profiles of different racial groups, and also any regional policy because of the different regional spread of different racial groups. Not least, challenges could be mounted to those policies that are helping individuals from ethnic minority communities the most.
The Government are working to ensure that discriminatory policy-making and practice must stop. But we believe that the most effective way of ensuring this is to retain the flexibility necessary to pursue policies which can benefit ethnic minorities and others without the risk of frequent and counter-productive challenges in the courts while obliging public authorities to tackle unjustifiable discriminatory practices through the promotion of race equality. That means, for example, consulting those affected by policy proposals and monitoring the differential impact of policy on different groups so that unexpected, unjustifiable outcomes can be remedied. As announced in the Government's equality Statement, we are pursuing this administratively and are committed to placing a statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality as soon as parliamentary time permits.
I come to the special provisions relating to immigration, asylum and nationality, at new Section 19C. The extension of the Race Relations Act will cover immigration staff. This includes all Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff who operate the UK's immigration control, both in this country and overseas.
The Bill provides a number of consequential measures to secure proper alignment between the various statutory provisions covering race relations and those that govern immigration, asylum and nationality. These are necessary to allow our immigration laws to continue to be administered as Parliament intended, and to support the Government's policy of reforming and accelerating the immigration and asylum appeals system. Your Lordships will of course be familiar with the measures in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to produce a new one-stop procedure for appeals. These measures, when in place, will support the delivery of our target that, by April 2001, the majority of asylum applications will be resolved within an average of two months and appeals against a refusal within a further four months.

131
The operation of an immigration policy necessarily and legitimately entails discrimination between individuals on the basis of their nationality. Differential treatment is unavoidable because, for example, arrangements for the operation of our immigration control at ports must distinguish between our own citizens, who are free from immigration control, and other nationalities who are subject to such control. Furthermore, there are different rules for those who enjoy free movement rights under our international obligations and those who do not. The immigration rules make distinct provisions for those nationals who require visas to come to the UK and those who do not. Some rules and policies apply only to Commonwealth countries or specified nationalities. There are other examples.
The operation of a rational asylum determination process also requires the ability to differentiate between people of different nationalities and ethnic and national origins who are at risk of persecution overseas and those who are not. A recent example of such differential treatment was the special exercise to evacuate and provide protection to Kosovo Albanians during the crisis in the Balkans.
The existing safeguards in the Race Relations Act for covering acts of discrimination done in pursuance to other statutory provisions are insufficient to allow the immigration system to continue to operate as it should. If consequential provisions were not made, Ministers would, for example, be unable to authorise special compassionate exercises where necessary for particular ethnic or national groups and immigration staff would be unable to exercise the operational discretion necessary to carry out their duties in accordance with ministerial instructions. That is why the Bill provides in new Section 19C that acts of discrimination by immigration staff will not be unlawful if such acts are required or authorised by specified immigration and nationality laws, or expressly authorised by Ministers who of course are themselves accountable to Parliament.
Overall, therefore, it will be unlawful for immigration staff to discriminate on the grounds of race or colour, or, in the case of nationality and ethnic and national origins, where they go beyond what is specified in immigration and nationality laws or what is expressly authorised by Ministers. The personal decisions of Ministers in individual immigration and asylum cases will also be exempt, as such decisions may make legitimate distinctions on the grounds of nationality not covered by existing approved arrangements.
The Bill seeks to strike a sensible balance between prohibiting discriminatory behaviour we would all regard as abhorrent on the one hand, and allowing justified and necessary acts of discrimination to maintain the Government's immigration and nationality policies on the other.
New Section 19D seeks to preserve the role of the criminal courts as the sole forum for determining guilt by exempting decisions not to prosecute from the new
132
provisions of the Bill. The importance of this principle was recognised both by the White Paper on freedom of information and also by the Phillips Royal Commission in 1981 which stated,
"publicly calling into question a decision not to prosecute could amount to a trial of the suspect without the safeguards which criminal proceedings are designed to provide".
I now move to Clause 2. The existing Act covers appointments made by Ministers and departments. Certain public appointments, such as Crown appointments, which are made on the recommendation or approval of Ministers will be newly covered by the Act by virtue of new Section 19B. This clause provides that the remedy for unlawful discrimination is by way of an application to the High Court, or in Scotland the Court of Session, for a declaration, or in Scotland a declarator, and damages. This brings these appointments more in line with existing arrangements in the Act in respect of public appointments.
I wish to say a few words about the special provisions being made in relation to the prosecution function. These are covered in Clause 4 of the Bill. The functions of criminal prosecutors and investigators as listed in the schedule will be covered by the extension of the Act. This means that individuals will be able to bring proceedings against prosecutors and investigators who have directly discriminated against them or victimised them. The Government also have important commitments in relation to the criminal justice system as a whole, including the objectives of dealing with cases with appropriate speed; meeting the needs of victims and witnesses; and promoting confidence in the criminal justice system. For this reason a number of safeguards have been built into the Bill to protect the proper investigation and prosecution of cases.
The Government place weight on avoiding unnecessary delay to the criminal process where there are parallel criminal and civil proceedings. So they are seeking to strike a balance between ensuring that proper civil remedies are available and ensuring that those responsible for crimes are properly and effectively prosecuted without delay or prejudice to the prosecution case.
Victims and witnesses are central to the effectiveness of the criminal process. They must have confidence in the criminal justice system and its ability to deliver its stated aims. The system must also be sensitive to their needs. So a balance needs to be struck between the interests of the individual in pursuing a legitimate claim under the Race Relations Act and the interests of justice, including the public interest and the proper interests of victims and witnesses.
Striking the right balance also means that civil proceedings may have to wait until the criminal proceedings have been finalised. Stays to civil proceedings will defer but not prevent the resolution of a claim for discrimination, and the court will consider what effect the civil proceedings are likely to have on the criminal proceedings, the decision to commence those proceedings, or an investigation into criminal

133
offences. The courts will play an important role in maintaining that balance and ensuring that competing interests are taken properly into account.
A further consequential measure is at Clause 5 of the Bill. This provides that claims of unlawful race discrimination from individuals who are subject to immigration control, which relate specifically to a decision in an individual immigration or asylum case concerned with their entitlement to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, will be heard by the independent appellate authority as part of the one-stop procedure on appeals. This is consistent with the Government's policy that in immigration and asylum appeals all outstanding matters should be considered by the appellate authority at one time in the interests of producing a system that is fair, fast and firm.
This will in no way deny individuals the right to a fair hearing. It will allow claims of unlawful race discrimination to be considered alongside human rights issues which themselves may concern issues of discrimination, and other matters relating to the fairness of the decision. A claimant who substantiates his or her claim of discrimination will then be able to apply to a county court or a sheriff court for damages.
Those claimants not subject to immigration control or who allege direct discrimination in other respects and who therefore have no appeal under the immigration Acts—such as British citizens—will be able to take their case direct to the county or sheriff court.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what happens if the litigant is successful in getting his or her claim against an immigration officer for discrimination upheld, but his or her substantive case for remaining in or entering the United Kingdom is turned down? How can he or she then seek damages in the county court if he or she is back in Lusaka or Hyderabad?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we will see what kind of accommodation we can make on that. I shall happily pick up on that point later in the debate.
The second main purpose of the Bill is to increase the accountability of chief officers of police in race discrimination cases by making them vicariously liable for the racially discriminatory acts of individual police officers. This is covered by Clause 3 of the Bill.
In the Act as it stands, employers are held vicariously liable for the discriminatory actions of their employees. That means that where an employee racially discriminates against an individual, the individual can bring proceedings against both the discriminator and against the discriminator's employer. The employer has a defence if he took reasonably practicable steps to prevent employees from doing the act or acts of that description.
Police officers are office holders, not employees. Under the Act as it stands, special provision is made to enable them to be regarded as employees in respect of their own treatment, but no provision is made in respect of the exercise of their police functions. Although Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 and
134
Section 39 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 make general provision for the vicarious liability of a chief officer of police, the construction of the Race Relations Act means that this does not apply to acts that are unlawful under the Race Relations Act.
So there is a clear anomaly here that needs to be addressed in order to bring the police in line with other organisations and with its own general practice. Both the Stephen Lawrence report and the Commission for Racial Equality have made recommendations to this effect. Clause 3 of the Bill, therefore, provides for chief officers of police to be made vicariously liable for acts of discrimination carried out by officers under their control.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the third main purpose of the Bill, which remedies certain national security provisions in the Act. These are covered by Clauses 6 and 7.
The Race Relations Act provides that an act of racial discrimination is not unlawful if done for the purposes of safeguarding national security, and that a ministerial certificate is conclusive evidence that an act was done for precisely that purpose. As far as we are aware, the power has been used only once in almost 25 years.
The power to issue such conclusive certificates has been found by the European Court of Human Rights—in relation to equivalent provisions in a different piece of legislation—to be incompatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The Bill removes the power in the Race Relations Act and amends the national security defence so that it will no longer be a complete defence to show that an act was done for the purposes of national security. It will also now need to be shown that the act was justified for that purpose.
The Bill also provides for courts to adopt certain special procedures when dealing with cases under the Act that raise national security issues. These provisions are based on similar provisions for tribunal rules made in Schedule 8 to the Employment Relations Act 1999.
I am sure that your Lordships' House will agree that it is absolutely essential that we get race relations issues right. I know that this will be reflected in the comments of noble Lords during the debate today. I very much look forward to listening—and responding constructively—to the points which will be raised. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids.
I hope that we shall be able to maintain a constructive approach throughout the passage of the Bill. If any points which would benefit from further consideration arise during the debate, I am happy to invite your Lordships to enter into correspondence with me or with my officials. I am also happy to invite noble Lords to attend meetings and to have further discussions on points of particular difficulty.
It has been a rare privilege for me, as Minister, to lead off the debate. It is not often that new Ministers have the opportunity that I have had today of playing a fundamental part in leading off legislation to which they feel so committed. I know that many of your

135
Lordships are very experienced in this field. I look forward to listening to the fruits and benefits of that experience. I trust that we shall make progress with a piece of legislation which satisfies our commitment—particularly in the wake of the Lawrence inquiry—to improving at all times the quality of race relations in our country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill in such detail. I look forward to further debates. In particular I look forward today to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. I am sure that her specialist knowledge and experience will inform our debates a great deal, not only today but in the future.
I have read the Bill carefully and studied quite a lot of what has been said and written about it. My view at the moment is that it is a sham. The Bill achieves a little, but it does not achieve what Ministers said they intended to achieve. It does not respond in full, as they said, to the Lawrence case, and it does not fulfil the expectations of the Commission for Racial Equality, even in the limited areas that it covers.
If the Minister had said that the Government had decided that it was unwise for the law to be extended very much, we could have respected that view and discussed it. But this Bill pretends to do things that it does not achieve. We are not going to oppose it today because we remain resolutely opposed to racial discrimination wherever it occurs. It is wrong in principle and appalling in practice. I am sure that everyone agrees with that.
The law has an important part to play in combating racial discrimination. It sets the climate and provides remedies for proven cases. It also gives power and authority to the Commission for Racial Equality so that problems can be identified and appropriate action taken, whether that is court action, education or persuasion. So the Bill should have a Second Reading, but it will also receive a thorough Committee stage to see exactly what it achieves, and how and why. We shall also need to look at what the Bill does not achieve, and why not.
I shall start with policing. The Minister's speech made it clear that this part does not by any means comprise the whole of the Bill, but it is an important element. Furthermore, as has already been said, it forms an important part of the origins of the Bill, flowing from the shocking Lawrence report. Of course, I recognise at once the dilemma of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary. Like us, he is thoroughly against racial discrimination. However, he also needs to recognise that, as Home Secretary, he has a duty to support the forces of law and order which are in themselves essential to a fair society. In particular, like us, no doubt he attaches great importance to the operational independence of
136
chief constables. In this country we pride ourselves on the insulation of our police forces and the criminal justice system in general from political interference.
However, so far as the Bill is concerned, the issue is how to make these different propositions compatible with one another. Should we subject the police, during their everyday work of enforcing the law, to scrutiny of their actions from the point of view of race and ethnic origin? It is not that the police are insulated from outside examination. On the contrary, they are some of the most elaborately supervised and scrutinised people in the whole of our public service. Each force is subject to its police authority, comprising councillors, magistrates and so forth. Forces are regularly inspected by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. The police receive Home Office instructions and guidance on all kinds of detail in their work. The Audit Commission does not only study and report on the accuracy and probity of the finances of the police, as would the auditors for a company, but it also scrutinises the effectiveness of their general operations. The independent Police Complaints Authority takes up individual complaints over and above the internal disciplinary code. Above all, the police are subject to the law itself, and the most obvious and essential part of their work concerns presenting the results of their efforts to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the courts to try to bring offenders to justice. Furthermore, their day-to-day work is also subject to detailed particular laws directed at them, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
On top of all that, their efforts are also the subject of constant scrutiny and interest from Members of both Houses of Parliament, from councillors, the press and numerous voluntary bodies, and of course television portrays policemen, both real and fictional, more than any other profession in our society. When I thought of making that point I took the trouble of looking through the television listings to see whether they stood up to my perception. Doctors run the police fairly close, but nevertheless, in my judgment, the police win. God and His priests come quite high up on the list in one way or another, and that group has some reserve slots. However, even then, the police are some way ahead. Politicians fill a good deal of the news and current affairs programmes, and occasionally are to be seen on the fictional side as well. But once again, it is clear that policemen, both real and fictional, are the subjects of more television coverage than any other group.
Given all this statutory and non-statutory interest and supervision of the work of the police, Parliament should be cautious about adding to their overhead burdens in responding to scrutiny. Perhaps that is partly what held back the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary. We do not want our police to get into the habit of deciding their actions in a defensive manner. We do not want them unnecessarily restricted by a wish to avoid even more time and energy-consuming explanations of their detailed actions to outside bodies.

137
That is not to say that the police should not be examined. However, it is the pattern that matters most. The most damaging charge made in the Macpherson report was that of institutional racism, however defined. Of course, investigation into the pattern of policing decisions cannot be done without considering individual decisions—second-guessing with hindsight the minutiae of daily operating decisions. However, the pattern that emerges is what matters most.
Such decisions are to be examined from only one primary aspect; namely, that of racial discrimination. At the time decisions are taken, they involve all kinds of other considerations, including the priorities of different events taking place at the same time, different investigations that are continuing, the resources available and the legal complexities of bringing cases to court. A policeman of almost any rank starting his shift of duty has less idea of what he will have to do before his shift ends that day than almost any other person I can think of. The police have to react to events as they occur, as anyone who has spent time with the police knows very well.
The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary could have said that, given all these considerations, we should not subject the police to further oversight of their actions; or, as does the Bill, we should at least very much limit that oversight. Conversely, others can—indeed they do—ask how it was that, given all this scrutiny, such a tragedy as reported by the Macpherson inquiry into the Lawrence case could still happen. If the Home Secretary had said that, given the circumstances, he would propose only a partial extension of the Race Relations Act, we could have considered that proposition with sympathy for the dilemma. However, the Government pretend that the Bill will apply the law so as to make unlawful the discrimination pointed out by the Macpherson report. I believe that to be a pretence.
Criticism of the way the Bill is framed has been forthright and very widespread, and we shall want to explore that criticism in Committee. It is a Bill of considerable complex detail, as was made clear by the speech of the Minister when he introduced it. Nevertheless, I shall today outline some of the areas that we shall want to explore.
The first, and much the most significant, is the limitation of a large part of the Bill to direct discrimination and victimisation; in other words, the omission of indirect discrimination. The Macpherson report indicated that what went wrong was primarily connected to indirect discrimination rather than direct discrimination and victimisation. However, it is also arguable how far what went wrong was due to sheer incompetence. In any case, as a supposed reaction to the report, it seems to me that the Bill fails, or certainly it falls short.
In practice, these days, most racial discrimination is indirect. Employers do not say, "I am not employing you because you are black". They know better than that. It is all much more subtle and indirect. Similarly,
138
no constable is going to say, "I'm stopping and searching you because you are black". It is the overall pattern of stop and search which matters in this respect. That is what we need to look at.
Clearly, the pattern of stopping and searching should mirror the likelihood of offences and the chances of success in preventing them or of bringing offenders to justice. It is those considerations which should make a policeman stop and search a particular suspect, not a fear of later arguments based on other factors.
The Home Office very helpfully published last week some statistics on race and the criminal justice system, including the use of stop and search powers. The statistics covered up to the year 1998–99. Among other things the statistics allow us to see the effect in terms of arrests of the stopping and searching of white people by comparison with black people or those of Asian or other ethnic minority groups. That is not the whole picture, but the statistics help us to understand the reality. There is considerable variation across the country between the different forces, but in England and Wales as a whole, there were just over 1 million stops in 1998–99. Of those, roughly 865,000 were white people. Of those whites, 11 per cent were arrested and followed up. Of the 95,000 black people who were stopped, 13 per cent were arrested. Of the 51,000 Asians who were stopped, 12 per cent were arrested. Of the 10,000 other ethnic minority groups, 14 per cent were arrested. In the Metropolitan Police the number of arrests of white and black people who were stopped was the same for both categories, at 13 per cent. In the West Midlands a slightly higher percentage of whites who were stopped were arrested—13 per cent, compared with 12 per cent for black people.
I find those figures, as far as they go, somewhat reassuring by comparison with some of the points that are made on this subject. But my point today is that I cannot see the Bill improving the situation, or the appreciation of the situation by the people involved.
The next point that we shall wish to probe is the definition of "public authorities". It is clearly, and quite rightly, much wider than the police. They should not be singled out. But the definition in the Bill is differently worded from the definition in the Human Rights Act. I am not clear why that is. We shall also wish to probe the effect of the difference in the definitions.
I am interested to know why private prisons are left out of the Bill. The Explanatory Notes tell us that it is the Minister's intention to extend the provisions to private prisons, among other institutions, in a similar position. So why not put them in the Bill straightaway, instead of leaving it to yet more secondary legislation? I am among those who think that the Government's obsession with ministerial orders and regulations is not a desirable way to legislate if it can be avoided, although it is necessary sometimes. It is much better to put provisions before Parliament in Bills. In this case that could evidently be done.

139
National Health Service trusts seem to have been left out in England and Wales but included in Scotland. Perhaps there is some deeper devolutionary reason for that. Certainly it looks odd on the face of it, if I have read the Bill correctly.
In the part of the Bill dealing with immigration, which is to be Section 19C of the principal Act, it is proposed to be lawful to discriminate by reference to someone's ethnic origin as well as their nationality and national origin. It is suggested that this will increase lawful discrimination in this particular. That requires an explanation.
Under what will be Section 19D, acts leading to a decision not to prosecute are to be exempt. That means that a failure properly to investigate some available information, which failure led to a decision that no prosecution could succeed, would be exempt. That, too, sits oddly alongside the Macpherson report and what happened in the Lawrence case, and requires further explanation.
Another puzzling subsection is the proposed new subsection (4A) to Section 57 of the 1976 Act. The idea seems to be that an award of damages during a criminal investigation could not prejudice later criminal proceedings, but another remedy, such as, presumably, an injunction, might prejudice proceedings. That seems to me to be a very odd contrast. We shall certainly need to find out what is the reasoning behind that.
As some of your Lordships may know, I pay particular attention on these occasions to what is said about the anticipated costs of the proposed legislation. That is probably because of my background as an accountant. But the expected costs of legislation are a guide to the Government's view of just how effective it is likely to be. In this case, the extension of the Race Relations Act is said to be likely—not certain—to lead to increased costs. Changed procedures, we are told, "may" give rise to costs: in other words, they may not. There may be no change in procedures as a result of the Bill which costs anything at all. In any case, all the costs, whatever they are, will be contained within existing expenditure limits. If I may put it this way, they will not register on the Treasury's scale of values as additional expenditure. Similarly, there are to be no significant effects on public sector manpower. All this gives me the impression that the Government expect that the Bill will have little, if any, effect on public authorities and the way in which they behave.
No doubt it will have an effect on the courts. Additional court and legal aid costs are expected, but again comparatively small ones. A peak of £600,000 for legal aid costs in five years' time does not sound likely to buy much legal advice when spread over all the cases involved. The Macpherson inquiry into a single case—it was admittedly a complicated and detailed inquiry—cost more than £3 million, which is nearly four times the anticipated expenditure in a whole year for all the cases under this Bill in five years' time when it is fully in operation.
140
All in all, this is an unsatisfactory Bill. It does not satisfy those who want to see a remedy for the tragic events of the Lawrence case, and it does not satisfy the aims of the Bill as originally indicated by the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary. We, on these Benches, want to play our part in practical, effective measures to combat racial discrimination wherever it occurs, but so far this Bill does not seem to achieve that. It is a sham.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his generous remarks about my role 25 years ago when I was at the Home Office serving a Labour Government with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as Home Secretary. Like other Members of the House, I much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids.
We on these Benches welcome the Government's decision to introduce this Bill to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to all listed public authorities, and to make chief officers of police liable for racially discriminatory conduct by police officers. We also welcome the decision to forbid direct and indirect racial discrimination in making recommendations and giving approval for appointments to public office or posts outside the employment field. That presumably includes appointments as Queen's Counsel and judicial appointments. I ask the Minister to confirm that that is so.
Like the Commission for Racial Equality, the Society of Black Lawyers and representatives of other ethnic minority organisations, and like the Conservative Front Bench, we are dismayed that the Bill is marred by serious flaws. We hope that the Government will agree to remove those defects. We hope that the Government will also give urgent attention—I emphasise "urgent"—to the much needed wider reforms of the hotchpotch of anti-discrimination legislation to produce a comprehensive, coherent, user friendly equality law, with more efficient equality compliance and enforcement machinery.
I shall explain some of the main defects in the Bill from the perspective of an architect of the Race Relations Act 1976 with long practical experience as a discrimination lawyer. In winding up, my noble friend Lord Dholakia will view the Bill from the perspective of potential victims of racial discrimination and will deal with the Bill's provisions relating to policing, prosecutions and criminal investigations.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry recommended that the full force of the race relations legislation should apply to all police officers. In his action plan, the Home Secretary stated that the Government had accepted that recommendation, and went further, saying:
"All public services are to be brought within the scope of race discrimination legislation".
What Mr Straw did not say was that public services were to be brought within the scope of only half of the concept of unlawful racial discrimination: only direct, and not indirect discrimination.

141
By creating an exception for indirect racial discrimination by public authorities, including the police service, the Bill discriminates between the public sector and the private sector. Indirect racial discrimination is, as the Minister has explained, unfair treatment resulting from a rule or practice applied equally to everyone, in a formal sense, but which has a disproportionate and unjustified adverse impact upon a particular racial group. Instead of having a greater responsibility because of the public nature of its vital functions, under the Bill much of the public service is to be less legally responsible. It is to he immunised from the statutory duty to justify indirectly discriminatory practices to individuals affected, the cowls and the CRE. A building society, a bank, a professional organisation, a security firm, a local authority or, in some circumstances, a government agency has, under Section 20, read with Section (1)(1)(b) of the 1976 Act, to justify indirectly discriminatory practices where they are concerned with providing services or facilities to the public or a section of the public.
But under the Bill it will not be unlawful for Ministers, their officials, the police and immigration services, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency and other public authorities to operate practices and procedures which have a disproportionate adverse impact on ethnic minorities and which cannot be justified.
The victims of indirect discrimination by the public sector will remain unprotected. For example, British Muslims, who cannot obtain a remedy for religious discrimination, will not be protected against indirect racial discrimination by public authorities in providing services stemming from hostility to Islam.
The CRE will be unable to use its strategic law enforcement powers to tackle indirectly discriminatory practices and procedures in key public sector functions, because, unless such discrimination is direct, it will be outside the scope of the Bill. That is a particularly serious defect. The CRE has conducted several important formal investigations into unlawful indirect discrimination covered by the 1976 Act. Its practical experience demonstrates the value of the CRE's power to issue non-discrimination notices; for example, in the allocation of local authority housing in Tower Hamlets and in my own borough of Southwark, or in threatening to issue a non-discrimination notice unless an unlawful discriminatory practice is eliminated. The CRE has no such power unless a practice is unlawful. Under the Bill, indirect discriminatory practices by public authorities are not made unlawful, so the CRE will continue to lack a crucial investigative power in that area.
Because of the immunity to be given to indirect discrimination by public authorities, there will also be much legal uncertainty and unnecessary litigation about opaque distinctions between what is direct and what is indirect discrimination by public authorities, about what discrimination (direct or indirect) by public authorities is already forbidden by Section 20 of the 1976 Act; and about the effects of the Bill on the
142
recently recognised common law principle that public authorities must provide equal treatment to the public without discrimination (Matadeen v Pointu [1998] 3 WLR 18 (PC)).
Both the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act already apply the concept of indirect as well as direct discrimination, not only to the employment field but also to public authorities and private bodies, in education and housing, and in the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public or a section of the public. We are not aware of any complaint that has ever been made that the operation of the concept of indirect discrimination in any of these areas is unworkable or unfair. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House whether he and his department have any evidence that it has operated in a harmful way.
Section 20 outlaws direct or indirect discrimination in the provision of certain services by public authorities. If a service falls within Section 20, it must be provided without direct or indirect discrimination. If it falls outside Section 20 but within the proposed new Section 19B, it must be provided without direct discrimination but it will not be unlawful if it is indirectly and unfairly discriminatory in its impact on ethnic minorities.
Unless the Bill is amended, much needless confusion and costly uncertainty will arise, both because of the inevitable overlap in many cases between direct and indirect discrimination and because, by not applying the law to indirect discrimination by public authorities, it will remain necessary to revisit complex case law based on obscure and elusive distinctions as to whether a public authority is or is not providing services to the public within the meaning of Section 20 of the 1976 Act.
Perhaps I may give some examples. In the case of Savjani [1981 QB 458], the Court of Appeal ruled that the Inland Revenue was providing services within the scope of Section 20 when deciding whether to enable taxpayers to obtain tax relief. It is unclear what other revenue functions fall within Section 20.
In Re Amin [1983 2 AC 818], the Law Lords decided by a 3:2 majority that the goods, facilities and services provisions of the anti-discrimination legislation apply only to acts done by the Crown if they are of a kind similar to acts that might be done by a private person, and did not apply to the Immigration Service. I respectfully disagree with the majority and agree with the dissenting judgment of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scarman, and Lord Brandon. I believe that if Re Amin were reconsidered today by the Law Lords, it would be overruled. It is a precedent of doubtful authority, especially since the Law Lords were not referred to the relevant body of international human rights law.

143
In Alexander v Home Office [1988 1 WLR 968], it was accepted by the Home Office that the allocation of work to prisoners is within the scope of Section 20. But prison disciplinary practices and procedures probably fall outside.
In Farah [1997 2 WLR 824], the Court of Appeal decided that Section 20 applies to the police in giving assistance to the public and protecting the public, as distinct from pursuing and arresting or charging alleged criminals. The borderline is vague and uncertain.
It is entirely fortuitous whether a function of a public body falls within or outside Section 20. It is quite ridiculous—I understate my indignation—for the concept of unlawful discrimination to depend upon making such an artificial distinction based upon an uncertain legal test in circumstances where the factual issues about purpose and effect will often be tangled together.
It is difficult to imagine how vulnerable people—the alleged victims of institutional racism by the police, prison, immigration or social services—could reasonably be expected to untangle the legal and factual knots. Disentangling those knots will simply add to the legal costs of employing counsel like myself.
By clothing themselves and their departments with the immunity from liability for indirect racial discrimination, Ministers are judges in their own cause. They seek to be immune, not for reasons of principle but for administrative convenience. The problems suggested by the Minister about policy-making are, with respect, fanciful and unreal. There is no reason whatever why regional policies and policies related to a person's age cannot be objectively justified. If, under the Bill, decisions about national security need to be justified, why on earth should other less serious policy decisions not also need to be justified?
I submit that the police service, the Government and other public authorities should be brought fully under the Race Relations Act, as the Macpherson inquiry envisaged.
As the CRE points out, another serious defect in the Bill is the absence of a clear and legally enforceable positive duty upon public authorities to secure that their functions are carried out without racial discrimination. In his press statement on 3rd December, the Home Secretary,
"promised to place a statutory duty on public authorities to promote equality. This will be taken forward as soon as legislative time permits".
There is no good reason why there should be further delay. A new clause should be added to the Bill containing a clear and enforceable positive duty. There is parliamentary time now and the time will come in Committee.
I turn to Section 19C, which creates a blanket exemption for any directly discriminatory act, in relation to any of the wide range of immigration or nationality functions, done against another person on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origins by
144
a Minister or by officials acting in accordance with a relevant authorisation. That section empowers Ministers to authorise officials to act because, in the words of the Explanatory Notes,
"the way officials actually carry out their duties is necessarily detailed in operational staff instructions approved by Ministers. It would be impracticable to set out in statutory or subordinate legislation every set of circumstances where discrimination would be required".
In other words, again for reasons of administrative convenience, the Government seek to bypass the need for parliamentary approval of racially discriminatory practices and procedures operated by their officials. I have expressed my concern about this and other provisions to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, whose report will inform subsequent discussion of the Bill.
If an exemption is needed for discriminatory treatment based on nationality or residence, a wide exemption is already provided in Section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 to cover such treatment. No further provision is needed for this. What is novel and objectionable is the blanket exemption for discrimination on grounds of ethnic or national origins.
Unlike discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of residence, discrimination based on ethnic or national origins is as much racial discrimination as is discrimination based on colour or race, as the definition of racial discrimination in Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 1966 makes crystal clear. Such discrimination involves treating one individual less favourably than another for what is not chosen by them but for what is innate in them at birth—their genetic inheritance—whether as ethnic Jews, Roma gypsies or Hong Kong Indians. It is as invidious and unfair as is discrimination based on the colour of a person's skin. That is why the Race Relations Act 1976 forbids direct discrimination on any of those racial grounds, apart from a range of clearly defined exceptions.
The sweepingly broad exception in Section 19C is incompatible with the very principle of non-discrimination which the legislation is intended to secure. If the Home Office wishes to make special arrangements aimed at providing protection to particular groups seeking shelter in the United Kingdom, such as the Bosnians and Kosovars who were granted exceptional leave to remain during the recent crisis in the Balkans, it is difficult to understand how that would require an exception. The reason for affording favourable treatment to some of those groups is surely not their ethnic or national origins but their well-founded fear of persecution, the urgency of their humanitarian needs and the need to comply with the UK's obligations under the refugee convention. The policy is not based upon or caused by their ethnicity. It does not involve discriminating against anyone on the grounds of their ethnic or national origins.

145
As the Government have correctly stated in the UK report to the CERD Committee, which is the UN committee (CER D/C/299/Add.9, 2nd December 1966, paragraph 58),
"There is nothing racist about designating countries which produce large numbers of unfounded asylum applications".
The same is true of refugee situations, if humanitarian provision is made, not on the basis of nationality or ethnic or national origin, but on the basis of an objective assessment of the conditions in the country concerned. The Section 19C exception is therefore not only unsightly, but unnecessary.
I go further. Even if it were appropriate, for the avoidance of doubt, to include an exception to cover situations of that kind, the exception to the fundamental right to equal treatment without discrimination would need to be prescribed in legislation in a way carefully tailored to what is necessary to give effect to the Government's legitimate aims, with adequate judicial safeguards against the abuse of this extraordinary power, to ensure that the doing of a discriminatory act is justified by its purpose, as with national security.
The functions covered by Section 19C include decisions to deport, exclusion directions, leave to enter or remain, the grant of asylum, exceptional leave to remain, and even naturalisation as a British citizen. Section 44 of the British Nationality Act 1981 provides that any discretion vested by that Act in the Secretary of State, a governor or lieutenant governor, must be exercised,
"without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by its exercise".
Yet Section 19C would allow the discretion to be exercised on the basis of ethnic or national origins which are part of the international legal definition of what constitutes "racial discrimination".
As it stands, Section 19C authorises breaches by a future populist illiberal Home Secretary, or by a prejudiced administration, of the various international human rights conventions by which the UK is bound: notably, Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 3 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 obliges contracting states to apply the convention's provisions to refugees,
"without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin".
That covers discrimination on grounds of a refugee's ethnic or national origins. The UNHCR executive committee, of which the UK is an original member, has emphasised that decisions on asylum must be made without discrimination as to race, religion, political opinion. nationality or country of origin (Executive Committee Conclusion No. 15(XXX) 1979; also Conclusion No. 22 (XXXII) 1981). Section 19C authorises practices and procedures in relation to immigration and nationality which would be incompatible with the refugee convention too.
146
We hope that the Government will agree to remove or to narrow Section 19C by limiting the exception, if they must, to special treatment on humanitarian grounds.
In 1975 the previous Labour government's White Paper, Racial Discrimination, observed that legislation was the essential pre-condition for an effective policy to combat discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and treatment. I quote that White Paper:
"Where unfair discrimination is involved, the necessity of a legal remedy is universally accepted. To fail to provide a remedy against an injustice strikes at the rule of law. To abandon a whole group of people in society without legal redress against unfair discrimination is to leave them with no option but to find their own redress. It is no longer necessary to recite the immense damage, material as well as moral, which ensues when a minority loses faith in the capacity of social institutions to be impartial and fair".
Those words are as relevant today as they were a quarter of a century ago. We support the Bill even though it is an inadequate half-measure. We hope that the Home Secretary and his colleagues will act constructively, as we have been promised, to amend the Bill on the basis of coherent principles as a modest first step towards the comprehensive overhaul of anti-discrimination legislation. Labour's election manifesto promised that,
"We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
We shall hold the Government to that promise, and await a reforming equal opportunities Bill before the next general election.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I shall be brief for I, too, look forward with great anticipation to hearing the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids.
I speak to two issues that apply to the NHS. I seek the Minister's assurance that the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will be used to remedy the discrepancy in the treatment of small partnerships under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the sex discrimination legislation. The Sex Discrimination Act 1986 amended the 1975 Act to remove the previous exception which allowed discrimination in partnership arrangements where there were fewer than six partners (Section 11 of the 1975 Act, as amended). However, the Race Relations Act continues to make discrimination in partnership arrangements unlawful only in respect of firms consisting of six or more partners (Section 10 of the 1976 Act).
Representation was made by the British Medical Association, which has briefed me, to the Home Office to change that. The association is committed to giving high priority to combating racism in the NHS and to bringing about the necessary changes. At a conference in February 1997 attended by representatives of all the major health organisations in the country, a number of themes emerged on which action should be focused. They included: monitoring data; ensuring compliance with racial equality policies; and amendment of the

147
Race Relations Act 1976, especially the removal of the exceptions which allow discrimination in partnership arrangements as they apply to general practice.
There are still some practices in the selection of medical staff which do not promote equal opportunities. Trusts, health authorities, health boards and general practices need to improve recruitment and selection practices. Thousands of citizens from ethnic minorities work in the NHS. The NHS would collapse without them. The biggest numbers are in nursing and medicine; for example, in medicine 24 per cent of the workforce—nearly 27,000 doctors—come from non-EU countries. Often they feel that they are discriminated against because they get mostly junior posts; promotion is difficult; recognition of their work is low and the vast majority work as locum doctors in many specialties where there are vacancies in permanent posts.
This discrimination, including that relating to admission to medical schools of even second-generation young student doctors, is not direct discrimination. The discrimination lies in their inability to get on to short lists for appointments. They are appointed to junior posts below their ability and are rarely given senior positions. They gain less recognition, for example in merit awards. This results from indirect discrimination—hence my concern about the omission of this form of discrimination from the Bill.
Policies of employment and promotion operate within the NHS which cannot be justified on non-racial grounds. The omission of provisions to deal with indirect racism seriously inhibits the ability to challenge institutional racism. What I have described is a daily occurrence for many individuals. I hope that the Minister will consider a plea to include indirect racism in the Bill. I have heard about the problems that this may create in the legislation, but indirect racism, including institutional racism, exists and good words may not get rid of it.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, it is a great honour to be a Member of the House and to address your Lordships in this my maiden speech. I express my sincere thanks to the many friends and Members on both sides of the House for their support, encouragement and kindness during my first few months. I pay a special tribute to the staff. This House is very fortunate to have very many hard-working and helpful staff. They have provided me with the right information at the right time and have pointed me in the right direction. They have led me out of cupboards posing as rooms, ejected me from the Benches opposite and spared my blushes. I thank them for their generosity and courtesy.
Today we debate a Bill that tackles prejudices. I admit to your Lordships that before I came here I too held prejudices about this House and some of its Members. However, like all prejudices these were proved wrong following first-hand experience of the individuals concerned.
148
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I share with them some of the prejudices that I held about this House. I felt that it was out of touch and out of date. I also feared that I would feel a little out of place. After only two months I can say that your Lordships' House is not as out of touch as I had once thought. I have been very impressed by the many conscientious Members who work tirelessly on behalf of numerous causes and use this House to speak up for people who cannot speak for themselves. I am pleased that this House is beginning to become more reflective of the people of this country whose interests, I trust, we come to this House to serve.
Nor do I believe that this House is as out of date as I once thought. Obviously, your Lordships' ancient ceremonies take some time for a newcomer to understand. I enjoy learning the traditions and procedures of this place. But I have to admit to times when I have been unsure about what is or is not the procedure of this House. For example, on my very first day in the Chamber, I saw a person jumping up and down on the Woolsack waving and shouting loudly. He was then escorted away by men in buckles and braces. I hope that your Lordships will sympathise with me for mistaking that as just another part of your Lordships' most ancient of proceedings.
I am pleased that this House is evolving, albeit slowly, to get in touch with the concerns and hopes of all the people of Britain. I am also pleased that it is showing signs of becoming more representative of our multicultural and multiracial society.
I am honoured to take my place among your Lordships on the journey towards a society, reflected in this House, which truly values diversity and promotes equality. As I speak, the new millennium is only 17 days away. I should like to pause for a moment to reflect on the millennium that is about to pass. During those 1,000 years there have been many achievements of which the human race can be proud. There are also many things of which the human race should be ashamed but from which we must learn if we are not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The history of racism is something of which we should be ashamed but from which we must learn. I distinguish racism from prejudice. I have always maintained that prejudice in an individual can be dealt with fairly easily, either through experience or education; or it can be ignored. But prejudice in an institution cannot be ignored. Racism in an institution is more pernicious than mere prejudice. Racism is the application of prejudice with power. Prejudice plus power is a dangerous combination. It was that combination of prejudice plus power that helped to capture, transport and sell my African ancestors into slavery in the new world.
Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made her maiden speech during the universities debate. She remarked that she had never expected to become a Member of this House and wondered what her parents would have made of their daughter being in the Chamber. I am the descendant of a slave. I also wonder

149
what my slave ancestors would have made of one of their women descendants being a Member of this Chamber 300 or so years after the abolition of slavery.
Some former Members of this House, like Lord Wilberforce, were instrumental in ridding this country and its empire of the trade in human beings. Slavery became an integral part of the economy of the British empire. The slaw, trade was institutionalised. We may have abolished slavery but we are still affected by the structures within our institutions which allowed such an abhorrence to flourish for so long.
I have said or other occasions that I am not sure why I have had the privilege of joining this House. It may be because of many years' experience of working with members of the different communities of south-east London and. in particular my time at Greenwich Council for Racial Equality. It was in that capacity that I first met Neville and Doreen Lawrence. The murder of their son, Stephen, the failure of the police and the CPS to bring the perpetrators to justice and their long campaign for redress shook the foundations of this country. Things can never be the same again.
That is why the black community rank Neville and Doreen Lawrence with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They all share the ability to communicate their suffering to the world. Every mother and father, every brother and sister, black or white, all felt their pain and their anger. I would say that the murder of their son may become as significant historically as the murder of Martin Luther King.
The inquiry into Stephen's murder introduced institutional racism into the wider domain. The media have brought it to our attention. Some have argued that the concept of institutional racism was plucked out of the air by Sir William Macpherson earlier this year. But the concept of institutional racism is nothing new. As the Lawrence inquiry report pointed out, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his presentation to Parliament of his report into the Brixton disorders addressed that issue in 1981. In that important report, the noble and learned Lord responded to the suggestion that Britain is an institutionally racist society by saying:
"If by [institutionally racist] it is meant that [Britain] is a society which knowingly, as a matter of policy, discriminates against black people, I reject that allegation. If, however, the suggestion being made is that practices may be adopted by public bodies as well as private individuals which are unwittingly discriminatory against black people, then this is an allegation which deserves serious consideration, and where proved, swift remedy".
The failure of the police and the CPS to assist the Lawrence family proved beyond all doubt that unwitting institutional racism has not been given serious consideration or swift remedy. Sadly, it has taken 18 years since the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for this House to consider the issue seriously.
The Bill is the Government's promised legislative response to the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Much credit is due to the Government for setting up the inquiry in the first place and to the Home Secretary for putting a comprehensive action plan in place to take forward its recommendations. There has
150
been real progress in the 25 years since the Race Relations Act was passed, but the murder of Stephen Lawrence has given us the impetus to update the Act and give it more teeth. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry called for the,
"full force of race relations legislation"
to apply to all police officers. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to extend the Race Relations Act to all functions of all public bodies and I am very pleased that the Bill makes chief constables liable for discrimination by their officers.
However, many organisations working with and representing ethnic minorities have raised concern that the Bill falls short of the inquiry recommendation since, for activities brought within the Act for the first time, the Bill makes only direct discrimination unlawful and leaves out indirect discrimination. I know that other noble Lords have raised similar concerns.
The Commission for Racial Equality argues that by omitting indirect discrimination in critical functions of public authorities the Bill inhibits the ability to challenge institutional racism. Indeed, Dr Richard Stone, one of the three advisory members of the Macpherson inquiry, is concerned that the Bill fails to address the causes of the police failure properly to investigate the murder of Stephen Lawrence. He says that the inquiry found,
"no evidence of direct racism—what we did find was indirect racial discrimination".
However, I am very pleased that the Government have indicated their willingness to consider ways of strengthening the Bill. The Government must and will do more. The Home Secretary is on record as saying:
"We have not yet found a workable solution, but that is not to say we have decided it is unworkable".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is a distinguished human rights lawyer who spent several years of his life drafting the original Race Relations Act. He has said that he may be suggesting amendments to the Bill. I was pleased to hear him do so today. I invite all noble Lords to support workable amendments which may strengthen the Bill so that this vital opportunity to put in place the legislative basis for tackling institutional racism is not lost.
We must tackle institutional racism in our public services. We still have far to go. This week, there may be a verdict in the case of the murder of the young musician, Michael Menson. Michael was found burning in north London. He had been set on fire and died of his injuries. The police took the view that Michael had committed suicide by dousing himself with lighter fuel. Michael was black. It took a sustained campaign by members of Michael's family to re-examine the circumstances of his death before the police made any arrests for his murder.
I have heard it said many times by many people in different parts of society that one cannot legislate against attitudes. That may or may not be so. If the perpetrators of prejudicial attitudes were to take the

151
life of my son, I would expect that there would be legislation in place to ensure that their attitudes and their actions would not go unchallenged.
Legislation provides the vital infrastructure for a society which is free from racism, which values diversity and which provides fairness and justice for all its citizens. That is the society I believe we all want for our children and grandchildren as we enter the next millennium.
4.31 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, on her distinctive and valued contribution to the debate. She is already known to some Members of your Lordships' House through her close friendship with the late Lord Pitt of Hampstead. She is widely respected as a community activist and campaigner and is held in great esteem and affection by the many volunteer organisations to which she has given long and dedicated service. As we might expect from her maiden speech, the noble Baroness is particularly respected for her commitment to social justice and equality.
More recently, as the noble Baroness mentioned, she has been supporting Doreen and Neville Lawrence in setting up the Stephen Lawrence Trust. I know that she has been an important role model for many young black people, including some Members of your Lordships' House. We greatly look forward to further contributions on a wide range of subjects with what clearly will be a distinguished combination of thoughtfulness, humour, strength and "winningness".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, mentioned, the murder of Stephen Lawrence and what the Macpherson inquiry revealed about the failure to bring his killers to justice was a turning point—and will be seen as such by future historians—in the history of policing in this country. The Macpherson inquiry revealed something terribly wrong not just with the police but with society as a whole, including the Church.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, speaking in your Lordships' House on 15th April, said:
"It is about far more than the terrible death of Stephen Lawrence and all that ensued; about far more than the Metropolitan Police, or policing in general in this country. It is about an issue that affects all of us, because it affects the whole of British society: the cancer of racism. The basic moral question before us is this: are we ready to own up to that cancer, not as someone else's responsibility, but as ours?".—[Official Report, 15/4/99; col. 868.]
He went on to say at col. 869:
"I do not exempt the Churches.".
In the light of that inquiry, the Churches are being challenged and we are hoping to set our own house in order.
I believe that as a result of that inquiry, everyone of good will is resolved to rectify the situation. Therefore, it is good that the Government have responded with
152
this Bill, which contains many significant and valued features. Above all, of course, it makes the Race Relations Act 1976 applicable to public authorities. Bringing public authorities, including the Police and Immigration Services, within the scope of the Act is the crucial element and it is much to be welcomed. The Lawrence inquiry recommended that the "full force" of the race relations legislation should apply to all police officers. Particularly to be welcomed, therefore, is Clause 3 and the new Section 76A(3), which makes chief police officers vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination committed by police officers. That brings the police into line with the position of other employers.
So the Bill will certainly go a long way to eliminating direct discrimination in the police and other public authorities. However, what the Macpherson inquiry was concerned with was institutional racism. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to that phrase and qualified it with the words "however defined". The noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, rightly drew attention to the important quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his 1981 report on the Brixton disorders. That definition was taken up by the Macpherson inquiry, which defined institutional racism in these terms:
"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.".
Institutional racism has been a controversial term. But the truth behind it is, I believe, inescapable. The truth is that the whole culture of an institution can, unconsciously—the word "unwitting" appeared in both the Scarman and Macpherson definitions—reflect racist assumptions; assumptions that reveal themselves in stereo-typical views of minority ethnic groups and patterns of behaviour that are asymmetrical in comparison to the majority population. The question is whether this Bill will help to eradicate institutional racism.
As many noble Lords have said, institutional racism reveals itself not so much in direct but in indirect discrimination. We heard the substantial contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It arises when a particular condition or requirement is imposed—not necessarily formally adopted, but operating within an organisation—that is not in itself discriminatory but in its application operates to the disadvantage of particular racial groups where, for example, members of that group are proportionately less able to comply with the condition or requirement.
In the context of the police, for example, police stop and search operations in neighbourhoods where there is a disproportionately high black and Asian population could be indirectly discriminatory. If such targeting were in response to a recent major spate of thefts in that neighbourhood, it is likely that it could be justified on good policing grounds. On the other hand, if the practice were followed by police officers as

153
an unofficial operational rule based on shared attitudes and stereotypes, it is unlikely to be justifiable on non-racial grounds.
The Minister, in presenting the Bill, said that the Government had seriously considered the possibility of including indirect racism, but had decided not to do so because of the uncertain and far-reaching effect on government policy. He gave the example of age-related or regional policies which might advantage or disadvantage certain groups and, although not on racial grounds, might lend themselves open to challenge on such grounds. Is that really the case? As the example that I have just given from policing reveals, if it can be shown that policing in a particular area is necessary, then of course no challenge can be brought against that policy on the grounds that it is racially discriminatory. If it can he shown that a particular policy in relation to regions which contain a high proportion of a particular ethnic group or a particular age group is carried out for perfectly appropriate reasons then there can, of course, be no challenge on the grounds that it is racially discriminatory.
I do not believe that that is a good enough reason for not including such a provision in the Bill. The reason why the issue is SO crucial is that Richard Stone, who was a member of the Macpherson inquiry, said,
"We found no evidence of direct racism. What we did find was indirect racial discrimination".
If that is so and the Bill does not include discrimination by public authorities within its scope, a serious question arises. Would the Bill, had it been enacted before the murder of Stephen Lawrence, have been able to bring to book those who were in fact responsible for the failure of the investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence?
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the fact that the 1976 Act introduced indirect discrimination into the law. As the 1975 White Paper stated at paragraph 35:
"It is insufficient for the law to deal only with overt discrimination. It should also prohibit practices which are fair in a formal sense but discriminatory in their operation and effect".
It is that failure to deal with indirect racial discrimination in relation to public authorities that has caused so much distress among many members of minority ethnic groups. I shall therefore listen with great care to what more the Minister may have to say about that particular aspect of the Bill.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a delight to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids. She spoke with rare authority, a touch of humour and much shrewd comment. Along with all Members of your Lordships' House, I wish her skill in avoiding cupboards in the House and express our hope that she will speak to us on many occasions.
It is my hope that the police will welcome the Bill and indeed will want to see it strengthened. They have a tough, sensitive and dangerous task to maintain the rule of law that we ask them to undertake on behalf of
154
us all. But maintaining the rule of law calls for the police themselves not to be above the law or apart from it. I understand well that we all like to deal with matters of discipline within an organisation and to keep them there, because we feel that no one else will thoroughly understand the problems of our organisation. Why should that not be accepted within the police service? We need to ask how such matters seem to those who often feel that they do not have access to where decisions are made.
In 1969 I moved from Newham in east London—Canning Town, which was then an entirely white area—to be Bishop of Woolwich in south London, where there were already large black and Asian communities. I asked my friend Wilfred Wood, who is now Bishop of Croydon, to educate me. One day he took me to Shepherd's Bush where he was then working. At the end of a day of visiting black people in Shepherd's Bush, I met with a group of black community leaders. I wanted to learn what their experience of life in London was.
Before they would talk about anything else, they insisted that I listen for an hour to their experiences of the police and of police activities. I have never forgotten the comment that the only other white person present made afterwards. He said, "It is like you going to a big house to see the man who lives in the big house. He sends the butler to get rid of you and you are angry with the butler". We are talking about large groups of people in our country who often do not have the right address on their notepaper; they do not have the ability to get to meet those in authority. The police are like the butler in that story.
That visit and that discussion were an important moment of education for me. I am afraid that that feeling about the police has continued in black and Asian communities. In Liverpool, black people have repeatedly told me that they made complaints about the police but never knew what happened to the complaints. They said that no police officer had ever been dismissed there for racist actions.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said that the police were the most scrutinised service. That is because they have the crucial role of upholding the rule of law; and how much that matters. I spoke today to a Liverpool lawyer who practises a good deal of litigation in that area. He said that it still feels very much the same; that complaints are made and disappear within the organisation. Perhaps police officers were disciplined within the organisation, but no one outside ever knew. There needs to be a much greater confidence that complaints will be actively pursued. I believe that the police service should welcome the Bill and should be seen to be subject to the Race Relations Act. I welcome, as other noble Lords have done, the clarity that Clause 3 will bring to the law: that chief police officers are liable and are the sole employer of police officers.
We have rightly heard a good deal about the report which eventually followed the murder of Stephen Lawrence and talk of "institutional racism". I regret that I have heard a number of debates on television

155
and on the radio in which people have tried to rubbish the idea of institutional racism, as though it were merely a sort of trick of words. But institutional racism is a reality. It is not, as some have tried to brush it aside, simply a matter of a few rotten apples in the barrel. A culture has been allowed to develop, not only in the police and in the canteen, which tolerates remarks about black and Asian people and about other minority groups; for example, gypsies.
Such remarks, if unchallenged, allow attitudes to develop which prevent even-handed treatment. Sometimes we can do more than we believe about those things as individuals. An old friend and colleague of mine whom I knew in south London when she was in her 70s, said to me, "Three of us have promised each other that we shall never allow a racist remark to pass unchallenged". That is what we can do as individuals, but the law must require that institutions and authorities publicly take steps to ensure that such remarks are tackled and challenged.
I hope that amendments will be brought forward that will impose a positive legal duty on public authorities to oblige them to act to prevent discrimination. I hope that other statutory and voluntary bodies will take such positive steps. I was delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark—who I know was here earlier and would have wanted greatly still to be here—told me yesterday that the Anglican Diocese of Southwark, having approached the CRE, is being examined by the CRE over a period of time to see how it handles relevant matters.
The Home Secretary Jack Straw publicly acknowledged that the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry showed how far we have to go before Britain becomes the beacon of equality that we are determined it should be. The Government must and will do more. I hope that during the course of the Bill my noble friend on the Front Bench, on behalf of the Government, will bring forward amendments that will strengthen it.
I believe that, importantly, the debate has already challenged the anxiety which exists about including indirect discrimination in the law. We all listened with great respect to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That certainly encouraged me to press my noble friend to tell us how indirect discrimination might be included in the law.
The remarks made by Richard Stone, which have been quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, are important. I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House and, indeed, the whole nation were genuinely shocked by the murder of Stephen Lawrence and by what was revealed of the failure to pursue vigorously the case and to bring people to court.
I know that it is difficult to enshrine in law offences that one may, in our old language, describe as leaving undone those things that ought to have been done and not simply doing those things that we ought not to
156
have done. However, I very much hope that my noble friend and his colleagues will bring amendments before your Lordships' House which will tackle indirect racism and that they will look sympathetically at such amendments as other noble Lords may table. We need provisions that will tackle policies and practices which may not constitute explicit discrimination but which, in effect, disadvantage particular groups.
I hope that the Bill goes forward, but that it does so in a strengthened form.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I follow one maiden and two bishops and that is a difficult position in which to find oneself. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids on a brilliant maiden speech. She gave us the full benefit of her long experience and wisdom and I look forward to hearing many of her contributions in the future.
I am not an expert on race relations, nor have I worked in race relations practice. Therefore, I shall be brief. Of course, I welcome the Bill but I feel that a chance has been missed. Over the past 23 years, and especially over the past three or four years, people's awareness of still persistent racism has deepened. We must remember that the re-igniting of the Stephen Lawrence case was carried out by the Daily Mail, a newspaper normally thought to be right wing. Tabloids in this country no longer condone any form of racism; they are clearly anti-racist.
As has been said by many noble Lords, we have all been shocked by the Stephen Lawrence case. However, my shock stems from the fact that no one seems to have been punished as a consequence of what we found out about the Stephen Lawrence case. At the time that the Macpherson report came out, I remember that a parallel and insignificant event occurred. Glenn Hoddle had to resign for making certain odd remarks. Even my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that Glenn Hoddle should resign. No one said anything about Sir Paul Condon resigning. At least, he certainly did not resign. I mentioned the contrast between those two events when I spoke in the Macpherson report debate, and I believe that it is shocking. It may be justified but it is shocking.
It is also shocking that murders of black or Asian teenagers must be dragged over many years into newspapers, petitions and so on in order to attain redress for grievances. Perhaps I may refer to the Ricky Reel case and the Satpal Ram case—his was not a murder case but he is in gaol. I believe that we shall not rid ourselves of racism in this country until parents of black and Asian teenagers and black and Asian teenagers themselves feel that they can achieve justice without the need to undergo the long haul of petitions, meetings, newspaper articles and so on. Far too many people who die in police custody are black or Asian, and I believe that that has not been properly investigated.
I do not own a car but I am told that if you own a fancy car and if you are black, there is a high probability that you will be stopped by the police. Why

157
should that be? If you are travelling late at night, look out of your car window. If a car has been stopped by the kerb, there is a 98 per cent chance that the driver will be black.
At the end of this process, I should like to see established not simply a legal structure but a climate of equality so that the first, second and third generations of black and Asian people feel at home in this country. That is the challenge which we all face. I hope that my noble friend will table amendments about indirect discrimination. Otherwise, we may have to wait another 25 years and I believe that the second generation who are now growing up will lose patience.
I make one more point concerning immigration and naturalisation. Although I have not experienced it myself, people tell me that non-UK citizens, black or Asian, who arrive in London or pass through London face a very bad time at the hands of immigration officers. I have spoken to many people who tell me that that is true. Black Americans or Indians travelling from India on their way to Canada or the United States are harassed. I do not know whether this Bill will do anything to reverse that grievance but I believe that this situation is giving the UK a bad name and that we should net tolerate such attitudes.
Whatever the Bill's provisions, I hope that at some stage the Government will encourage the positive task of promoting equality of all citizens. Eventually, this issue should become one not of racism but of equality.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill. My reaction to my noble friend's speech can be summed up in five words: "I should think so, too!".
Like my noble friend Lord Desai, I am not an expert in the field of race relations. In my ignorance, believed that the Race Relations Act 1976 covered the work of public bodies. What a pity that it needed the tragedy of the Stephen Lawrence affair to make me aware that it did not. I believed that the 1976 Act applied to all public bodies when exercising their functions. Those that did not do so properly would appear to the public to be outside the law. What sort of democracy is that?
We have all seen what happens in countries where public bodies are outside the law. Too often we have seen the terrible things that happen if administrative decisions discriminate against or victimise people on grounds of race. That is the institutional prejudice to which my noble friend Lady Howells referred in her excellent maiden speech. We have seen it in Eastern Europe, in the old Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany. Like other noble Lords, I, too, believe it is unfortunate that the Bill does not include indirect discrimination by public bodies.
I hear what the Minister says about problems relating to officials in public bodies dealing with age differences, regional differences or indirect actions which they did not create or which are outside their control. But my earlier concerns about the dangers of
158
public bodies being perceived as being outside the law apply just as strongly. I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Sheppard about perceptions.
Indeed, I believe that there is a duty on the public sector to lead by example. I am pleased to note that my noble friends the Minister and the Leader of the House agree with me. On 2nd December, I asked the Government what was their approach to equality issues. In her reply, my noble friend the Leader of the House wrote that the public sector will lead by example. Earlier, in the same Written Answer, she said that the Government are working to eliminate unjustified discrimination wherever it exists. Bravo to that. But it exists in the area of indirect discrimination by public bodies and I hope that the Government will take a good look at that.
I have heard it said that now there is too much regulation and legislation in the field of race. Opponents to the Bill claim that it merely adds to the excess of red tape. In response, I make the point that there seems to be some confusion in people's minds about regulation. There are two kinds of regulation and people must distinguish between them: on the one hand, there is lifting bureaucracy and cutting red tape; and on the other, there is regulation laying down basic standards and minimum entitlements for our society. Of course we want to cut red tape, but we also want to live in a decent society. This legislation deals with decent standards and I am in favour of that.
The other observation I make about the complaint of too much legislation in the race relations field concerns experience in the United States. Certainly a more tolerant attitude to race relations would have emerged there eventually, but it has been demonstrated time and time again that legislation has speeded up the process considerably. Of course you cannot change attitudes by passing laws. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about that. But passing laws sets an example and it is an important element in achieving change.
Too little regulation can have the opposite effect, and gaps left by government regulations will be filled by litigation. Litigation on social issues is certainly good for the lawyers, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, demonstrated, but I wonder whether it is good for society. And so I ask the Minister to make sure that this Bill does not leave too many gaps for social litigation.
I have heard it said also that race relations legislation is counterproductive to assimilation. I know a little bit about assimilation. I was brought to this country as a child by parents who were escaping from racial intolerance. My parents did everything they could to help me to assimilate. That is how they thought I would get on. Fifty years ago, they were probably right. But today we live in a more tolerant country. Most people have grown to accept the differences and diversity of people who make up British society. In turn, that has made it possible for minorities to feel more comfortable in their differences. My noble friend Lady Howells explained that to us. Indeed, younger people in minority

159
communities have been able to be more self-assertive about their differences. That is much healthier because you do not become so distant from your own race that you are unable to develop a sense of common feeling for other minority groups. You remember your roots; you are not ashamed of them; you celebrate them.
Therefore, instead of making assimilation more difficult, the legislation that we are considering today helps people to maintain their identities in a changing, multicultural landscape and yet they are assimilated in a way which enables them to participate fully and equally in British society. That is my personal and private reason for supporting this Bill. My public reason is that I hope that the Bill will lead to less discrimination because I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that it is good for society and it is good for the economy.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, on her brilliant maiden speech. I appreciated everything she said and we certainly look forward to hearing from her many times in the future, not only on this but on the many other subjects on which she has so much to contribute.
My noble friend Lord Lester, whose immense expertise and involvement with this subject goes back to the White Paper of 1975 and beyond, set out clearly why we on these Benches can give only a qualified welcome to the Bill. We are therefore associated with all noble Lords who have spoken so far except the Minister. We do not agree that in extending the scope of the original Race Relations Act to cover all the functions of public authorities and not just the provision of services to the public, which is dealt with already in Section 20 of that Act, the Bill should cover only direct discrimination. That leaves authorities free to impose conditions or requirements in the exercise of any of their other responsibilities which can operate to the disadvantage of particular racial groups. And they do, as we know from bitter experience.
The public authorities concerned are defined in the proposed Schedule A1. As the Commission for Racial Equality observes, it is not clear why the Government have chosen a different specification to the much simpler formula in the Human Rights Act that,
"any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature",
except Parliament. For example, the Human Rights Act formula would have included the management of the privately-run prisons, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, Immigration Act detention centres and the other places to which asylum seekers can now be sent, NHS trusts, which have also been mentioned, and regional development agencies. I ask also what will happen in relation to the Underground, if it is privatised, or air traffic control? Dozens of other examples may spring to the minds of noble Lords. It seems to be a passion of this Government to privatise everything in sight, and the Minister said the other day that there is no such thing as good management
160
outside the private sector. So what will happen? When each prison is privatised or each detention centre is put out to contract, must there be a special instrument to extend the provisions of the Bill to cover its functions?
The harm done by indirect discrimination can be imagined when it is recalled that last year the Home Office itself was found to harbour deeply entrenched racist attitudes in a survey commissioned by the department itself. Managers, including, I am sorry to say, some from the immigration and nationality department, made extremely racist remarks in the focus groups which were part of that study. Yet there is to be an exemption from the Bill for immigration officers and Ministers exercising the discretion conferred on them by the immigration Acts, allowing them to discriminate on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin. Since Ministers have an unfettered discretion in, for example, the 1971 Act, that appears to give them an open-ended power to discriminate, even outside the immigration rules.
But I wish to spend a few moments examining the possible impact of the Bill on another section of the community which has not been discussed so far but only mentioned en passant by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard; that is, gypsies. I begin by reminding your Lordships of an interview given by the Home Secretary to Annie Oathen on Radio West Midlands on 22nd July which was widely reported in the national press at the time. The question under discussion was ostensibly the deployment of 100 armed police officers at a traveller wedding in Coventry. We should remember that we are not talking now about locker-room banter; this is the Home Secretary speaking to a large audience on West Midlands radio. He said that,
"people have got to stop being sentimental about so-called Travellers … there are a lot more people who masquerade as Travellers or Gypsies … who seem to think because they label themselves as Travellers that they've got a licence to commit crimes … Many of these so-called Travellers seem to think it's perfectly OK for them to cause mayhem in an area, to go burgling, thieving, breaking into vehicles, causing all kinds of other trouble including defecating in the doorways of firms … if the West Midlands police are taking a tough stance with people like this then I'm very pleased they're acting tough in this way and I'm glad for the community because we've got to get the message across to Travellers that they are going to be treated the same way as anybody else".
As it turned out, there had been no violence at all at the wedding. The message transmitted by that incident to the travellers and to the settled community is that the Secretary of State and the police see travellers as being dangerous and lawless enough to warrant the deployment of a substantial force—often armed—when they have large social events.
I telephoned Annie Oathen, who interviewed the Home Secretary, and a reporter from the Birmingham Post to ask whether they could recall any case within their area of a person defecating in doorways of firms, whether gypsy or not. Both told me that no such report had ever been made.
I wrote to the Home Secretary suggesting that for him to regurgitate an urban myth of that sort was to encourage the prejudice against gypsies and travelers

161
which has been prevalent throughout the whole of my political life. Apparently it is all right to be derogatory about travellers although—thank goodness—in the last 30 years it has become totally unacceptable to be derogatory about other ethnic groups.
No one suggests that gypsies and travellers never commit offences or annoy their neighbours. It is natural that people who are socially excluded—travellers are excluded far more than any other section of the community—may be likely to fall into crime and are more likely to do so than people who have had a reasonable education and come from good homes. If that is the case, surely the remedy is a far more vigorous approach to social exclusion of all kinds rather than for the police to target the victims. I suggested that to Mr. Straw in my letter, to which he failed to reply.
A rather similar event to the Coventry wedding led to a case under the existing Race Relations Act to which I draw your Lordships' attention. Mrs Smith, whose daughter was getting married, hired the Pittville Pump Rooms from the Cheltenham Borough Council for the reception in August 1997 at which she expected 150 guests. The previous March police had experienced trouble at another gypsy wedding and had received information about two further weddings, one of which was to be attended by 1,500 guests. The police falsely informed the Cheltenham Borough Council that Mrs Smith, who had hired the room for 150 people, was hoping to have 10 times that number at the function. The council summoned Mrs Smith and imposed extra conditions on the hire of the room, including a £750 deposit, admission by ticket only and the full costs to he paid 15 days before the event. The family had no choice but to comply with those arrangements.
However, Mrs Smith brought an action against the borough council for breach of contract and for breaches of Sections 20 and 21 of the 1976 Act, which make it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of goods and services or on the terms upon which premises are offered. The action against the police was under Section 33(1) of the Act which provides that a person who knowingly aids another person to do an act made unlawful by the legislation is himself doing an unlawful act of a like description.
Last week, unfortunately, the Court of Appeal threw out the case against the police although the council had clearly behaved in a discriminatory manner solely because of the information given to it by the police. That decision of the court gives the police carte blanche to pass on false information about members of any ethnic group. That is important in the context of the crime prevention partnerships that are being set up all around the country between local authorities and the police. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Bill will have any effect, directly or indirectly, on the application of Section 33 of the parent Act?
The two examples I have given illustrate the more general problem faced by gypsies and travellers: that because the police consider them to be more prone to
162
criminal behaviour of certain kinds on a large scale they use oppressive and intensive policing methods which are disproportionate to the objectives sought and to the actual level of offences committed.
When I have tried to raise this matter in the House I have been told that the policing of each event is entirely a matter for the chief constable in whose area it occurs. There is never an opportunity to consider the whole picture throughout the country. On 7th October 1997 an incident occurred in north Oxfordshire when 200 armed police officers raided a gypsy site. They kept the residents imprisoned on the site for 11 hours, preventing children from attending school and patients from visiting doctors. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, when I raised the matter on the Floor of the House, contented himself with advising me to make a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority if I had any evidence of police malpractice. It is not my job to make complaints about something of which I did not have personal knowledge and it begs the question that that is not the only incident of its kind.
My submission is that police forces quite often go over the top in policing any event or in dealing with any suspicions in connection with gypsies. I do not understand how the present Bill will deal with institutionalised police bias against gypsies and travellers because every individual allegation of discrimination still has to be dealt with by means of a complaint and there cannot be a general investigation of the kind needed to redress matters.
Moreover, in England and Wales the only people identified as gypsies and who are definitely entitled to the racial equality legislation are those who are officially classified as gypsies. I do not know whether Irish travellers are so covered. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell the House. It is possible that an anomalous situation could arise in which Irish travellers are dealt with under the discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland but not on the mainland of Great Britain.
The Lawrence inquiry was effective only because it went beyond the actions that were taken by the police in relation to the tragic murder of a single victim. It dealt with the wider question of police attitudes on racial equality. We also need that kind of approach for travellers or the Bill will be of no help to a community that suffers more deprivation and discrimination than any other in the land.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the Bill is a welcome extension to the Race Relations Act 1976. The first provision of the Bill touches on a central concern in the development of a fair society; namely, the conduct of public authorities. To bring all public authorities under the scope of the legislation will help to make a reality of the Government's intention and, in the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to "tackle institutional racism". However, the Bill does not provide for that completely because, as we have heard from all sides of your Lordships' House, it deals only with direct discrimination committed by a public authority.

163
Direct discrimination by a public authority fortunately is now rare in our society, although it is still, rightly, held to be illegal. To use another of the Home Secretary's phrases, it is not direct discrimination that holds up the "building of an anti-racist society", but part of our culture that is often unacknowledged—unconscious attitudes flowing, no doubt, from a series of historical events, as my noble friend Baroness Howells of St Davids said in her thoughtful maiden speech. Those attitudes are the main underlying reason why people from visible ethnic minorities are treated unfairly and have unequal opportunities. It shows in the employment figures where those with higher qualifications are still two or three times more likely to be unemployed if they are black. And the position is getting worse according to the latest TUC figures. It shows in school attainment figures, so closely linked to teacher expectations. It shows in different and more custodial mental health treatment for black patients. And it shows in the criminal justice system in different patterns of sentencing.
Those are the symptoms of institutional racism—specific groups of people defined by their race getting a worse deal from public services, and the cause is indirect discrimination. The Bill can do something about it, taking on board the reservations of my noble friend the Minister. We can work on that in Committee and it would be a milestone to achieve full coverage.
I support one other point in relation to public authorities. It is, in fact, not precisely public authorities but what public authorities do that needs to be covered. In this time of contracting out, outsourcing, public-private partnerships even, there are many private organisations which carry out public functions. Group Four was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in relation to its detention facilities for asylum seekers. Local authority functions are also contracted out.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that some adjustments to the drafting of the Bill would be helpful and that to replicate the phrasing of the Human Rights Act would be more economical with words (which I recall is favoured by parliamentary draftsmen) as well as with parliamentary and administrative time than having to list out each body by order from time to time.
The Bill is also an important step forward in providing for chief officers of police to have the same sort of responsibility as employers in respect of liability under the legislation, and in making Crown appointments subject to the Act.
A more faltering first step deals with the questionnaire which may be served on employers in civil race discrimination cases. The Bill says that if there is a possibility of criminal proceedings, no adverse inference may be drawn from a refusal to answer the questionnaire. Surely there is a provision missing which ought to balance this; that is, if there is no question of criminal proceedings, the tribunal must
164
draw an inference from a refusal—a refusal which could prevent institutional racism ever coming to light. That too would be worth looking at in Committee.
Finally, I echo the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the Long Title of the Bill would easily encompass the undertaking made earlier by my noble friend the Minister—the duty on public bodies to promote equal opportunities. That would bring this country in line with other successful democracies and would give an incentive to thinking positively and imaginatively about diversity rather than only defensively.
Other noble Lords commented further on those points and on other important aspects of the Bill. I shall not repeat any more of that. But I should like to repeat that this Bill does take us some way forward in "building an anti-racist society". I am sure that it could end up as much a source of pride as was the first Race Relations Act.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is the most significant development in race relations for almost a quarter of a century. I congratulate the Government on providing an opportunity to extend the 1976 Act to all public bodies, including the police and immigration authorities. It was a Labour government that introduced the Race Relations Act 1976. It took another Labour government to call for the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report and produce a Bill that goes beyond the report's recommendations in that it applies the Act to all public authorities and not merely the police.
I welcome the Government's willingness to consider ways of strengthening the Bill. There is an overwhelming case for the Government to introduce amendments to the Bill to cover religious discrimination and reinstate the indirect discrimination clauses. There is a further opportunity for the Government to establish the duty on public authorities to promote racial equality so that the Government's commitment to racial equality becoming a reality is not just a slogan.
The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will make it unlawful for a public authority to discriminate directly in carrying out any of its functions, as we heard earlier from many noble Lords. However, although direct discrimination by public bodies will be unlawful, indirect discrimination will not. That omission will make it impossible to challenge many of the most problematic aspects of policing; for example, the disproportionate use of stop and search powers against black people which was mentioned earlier. It will also limit the powers of the CRE to carry out formal investigations in those areas.
There is a further anomaly in that, in the absence of religious discrimination laws, the only protection Muslims, Hindus and Christians enjoyed was under the indirect discrimination provisions of the Race Relations Act. For example, employment cases established that a dress code prohibiting women from

165
wearing any headscarf that directly affects Muslim women can constitute indirect racial discrimination against persons of Pakistani origin. In the past there have been instances in which Muslims, Rastafarians or Hindus believed that they were receiving less favourable treatment by, say, prison officers on the grounds of their religion. Under the Bill as drafted they would have no recourse to redress.
I understand that the Government consider that simply adding a reference to religion in existing anti-discrimination legislation would generate more problems than it would solve. One problem is that members of sects, as distinct from members of religions, could claim protection under the new legislation, and that the practices and beliefs of such sects are normally objectionable. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lore Lester of Herne Hill, will agree that it was the courts that defined "racial groups" in the Race Relations Act; similarly, the definition of religion can surely be left to the courts.
My second point relates to the omission of indirect discrimination in critical functions of public authorities. The Bill seriously inhibits the ability to challenge institutional racism, which brings me to my final point. The police, the Prison Service and the Civil Service are not the only institutions riddled with institutional racism.
The Macpherson inquiry found institutional racism in the National Health Service. I recently received many complaints regarding the medical colleges. I understand that the medical Royal Colleges are the real power behind the National Health Service and that they do not simply set standards for training and education in medicine. I understand that they have a strong say and a powerful influence, via their advisers, in all the NHS job appointments and in the employment of doctors. There are allegations of discrimination against ethnic minority doctors in career progress arid training.
A few years ago the CRE found evidence of racial discrimination in senior registrar and consultant appointments. To date, there have been more than 50 cases of racial discrimination brought by ethnic minority doctors against the Royal Colleges in respect of appointments directly influenced by their regional advisers. The proportion of locum doctors from the ethnic minorities is extremely high because they are unable to get permanent jobs.
Therefore, like many noble Lords, I, too, hope that the Government will use this opportunity to ensure the introduction of such amendments as will cover all these anomalies.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I join other speakers in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, on her maiden speech, which was quite exceptional. As regards her contention that this House, which has long been acknowledged as a defender of ancient privileges, should now be transformed into a righter of ancient wrongs, I can assure her that she will have an increasing number of allies on these Benches for precisely that purpose.
166
When we make a contribution to a debate, especially one which revolves around the issue of policing—a matter on which I intend to concentrate—we should recognise that most of us are drawn from those sections of society in which our brushes with the police are likely to have been minimal and generally in a fairly helpful capacity. Therefore, we may have some difficulty in fully understanding the perspective of those who feel very vulnerable.
I recall one occasion when I felt excessively vulnerable when faced with the police. I am not referring to the police in this country who, in any case, have much higher standards. I have in mind the time I went to Poland—that is, Gomulka'a Poland, the old Communist-state regime—and committed the very minor infringement of failing to register successfully with the local police when transferring from one town to another. I was confined to the cells because the police were under the distinct impression that I was German. That was in Cracow. Noble Lords will recognise that there was not a great deal of love lost between the Poles and the Germans at that time. My feeling of excessive vulnerability in circumstances where power was being exploited and used in a very naked way is something which, as noble Lords can clearly see, has marked my perspective to this day.
There are occasions when some of our fellow citizens find themselves in exactly the same circumstances. That is why we must have regard to advancing the standards of policing in this country. I do not underestimate the difficulties involved. Policing is often difficult, and we have always prided ourselves on the fact that policing relates to consent. That is much more easy to achieve in a society which is less varied than the one we have at present. Today, consent means that the police have to be able to win the hearts and minds not only of the majority of the population, from whom most policemen are drawn, but also those of the minority communities.
I speak with direct experience of the town from which I take my title; namely, Oldham. Policing in Oldham is very difficult and has to take place in circumstances where, from time to time, there are tensions between communities. Indeed, very strong anxieties exist among groups of ethnic minorities about the way in which—I state this quite clearly—the white police act at times.
Let us take, for example, quite a neutral measure in which the police may be involved. Who could possibly be against a police drive to ensure that the standards of mini-cabs, which provide so much of the transport in the town, should be high? Who could criticise the police when, as a result of that drive, a whole series of cabs was taken immediately off the road, thus rendering many livelihoods vulnerable, because there was good objective evidence to show that the vehicles did not meet public safety standards? Indeed, no one could say that the police were doing anything else except serving the public interest. But it affected a certain group of people whose livelihoods were placed very much at risk.

167
We are talking about a very poor section of the community who, even with their very limited resources, send quite a large proportion back to their native land to families for whom they feel some responsibility. All I am saying in this context is that such an onslaught is somewhat different from pulling in lorry drivers on the M.62 to check out the safety of their vehicles. That is not to say that both are not a proper police concern as regards the safety of our roads. I should declare an interest at this point as I am president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I am certainly not going to be against police measures to ensure that vehicles are safe. I merely seek to emphasise how much more sensitive one form of activity is than the other.
I do not always feel that the way in which the police relate to the community is sufficiently sensitive in such circumstances. We need to have due regard to the problems which the Lawrence inquiry identified and which—dare I say it?—the Scarman inquiry identified 18 long years ago. I heard what the chief Opposition spokesman said about the Bill being a "sham". I find that slightly inflated language. It is more of a shame perhaps that we have had to wait for 18 years for action to be taken about a previously defined problem regarding the relationships involved in the policing of our society. That problem was identified in the early 1980s but is only now being examined thoroughly and properly with legislative action being taken.
We should not underestimate the problems we face. It means that the training and the recruitment of the police must be approached with great thoroughness. There is no way in which the police will be able to establish effective relationships with the community unless we ensure that they are more representative of the people whom they seek to serve. They must be more understanding, and police training must involve an appreciation of the nature of the problems faced by ethnic minorities in particular.
Similarly, we should not underestimate the degree of the problem. It has been rightly pointed out in this debate that the legislation of 1976 put an end to overt racism. But indirect racism has been alluded to. Indeed, it has been mentioned in regard to the NHS, which is a very important dimension of our public services. We know just how many members of the ethnic minorities contribute to the running of the health service. But how much more important—dare I say it—is the issue of fairness in the enforcement of law and order. How anxious should we be that the CPS is being subject to challenge by the CRE at present? The Lawrence inquiry and, before it, Scarman, are measures of just how much progress we need to make to ensure that we have a society in which relationships between the police and the community they seek to serve are based on the concept that racism is a thing of the past.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the Government's decision to introduce the Race
168
Relations (Amendment) Bill. However, when the Home Secretary reads Hansard tomorrow he will feel not at all comfortable. What a delight it is to note that there is almost a consensus that what is dressed up as a radical reform falls fall short of its objective.
First, I endorse what has already been said about the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. The noble Baroness and I have been involved in race relations since the early days in the early 1960s and even before any legislation was contemplated. She has worked tirelessly to ensure justice and fairness for all. It was not in the least bit surprising that she alone among many stood by the Lawrence family for over five years to ensure that they received justice. Those of us who saw Mr and Mrs Lawrence on our television screens could not have failed to notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, was always in the background. We are all delighted with her elevation to your Lordships' House. More importantly, we should listen with great care to what she has to say on the important subject with which we are dealing today.
At the very outset it is important to be clear about the Bill's main purpose; namely, to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 in relation to public authorities. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has already explained that the present Race Relations Act does not generally apply to functions of public authorities that do not constitute employment, training and education, or the provision of goods, facilities or services.
It is not difficult to understand what direct discrimination is all about. It arises where a person treats another person less favourably on racial grounds. Racial grounds are defined as colour, race, nationality and ethnic or national origins. I have often argued that no one in his or her right mind could ever have imagined in the early 1960s that this country would in almost 10 years promote three separate pieces of race relations legislation. I am delighted that the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has been recognised and I endorse the tribute paid by the Minister.
However, we must never forget that it took the courage and leadership of my noble friend, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, to promote such legislation when he was Home Secretary in the then Labour government. I say deliberately that it took the courage of my noble friend Lord Jenkins, because somehow I suspect—I hope that I am proved wrong—that this courage is lacking in the present Government. I shall explain why.
If legislation against direct discrimination were to resolve all our ills, there would have been no need for changes in the race relations legislation. Unfortunately this has not been the case. In the 1960s, despite the legislation to tackle direct discrimination, employers still imposed conditions or requirements which had to be complied with in order for someone to qualify for or to obtain a job. We should remember the large number of case studies in those days which were well reported in the media. For example, the transport authorities would not employ Sikhs on Wolverhampton buses because they failed to meet the

169
requirement of wearing a uniform, which included the wearing of a cap. No turbaned Sikh could ever have complied with that condition.
It was therefore important to establish the provision in the Race Relations Act 1976 of indirect discrimination. As my noble friend Lord Lester has pointed out, indirect discrimination consists of treatment which may be described as equal in a formal sense as between different racial groups but is discriminatory in its effect on one particular racial group.
Although I welcome the Bill, I am disappointed that after almost 25 years of the Race Relations Act we are still missing the golden opportunity to introduce legislation more appropriate to the present day situation confronted by people in this country. It is important to stress that race relations legislation is not simply about discrimination against blacks and Asians but applies to all our citizens. We should never forget that white people have also secured remedies under race relations legislation.
Parliament set up the Commission for Racial Equality and gave it powers which are the envy of many of our neighbouring countries in Europe. One of the tasks that the CRE was asked to undertake was to keep under review the working of the Race Relations Act and, when required by the Secretary of State, or when it otherwise thinks it necessary, draw up proposals for amending it.
The CRE conducted reviews in 1985 and in 1992. The first yielded no response from the then government. The second was considered but most of the recommendations were not proceeded with. In April 1998, after undertaking the third review, the CRE submitted its proposals to the Home Secretary.
No one disputes that there has been measurable progress in tackling discrimination and prejudice in Britain since the Race Relations Act 1976 became law. The value of legislation has been well established and it has received support from all fair-minded people in the three main political parties.
Rather than the bottling up of hurt feelings, the legislation has given individuals the opportunity to tackle their grievances in tribunals and county courts. It has allowed reasonable people to ensure that they are not pressurised into promoting discriminatory practices. However, the most important aspect is that race relations legislation has become an unequivocal statement of our public policy. It must therefore be a matter of serious concern that the CRE, the body established by Parliament, finds the present Bill, in the words of its chairman, "hamstrung from the start".
The Home Secretary gave the pledge that he would amend the Race Relations Act 1976 in response to the publication of the inquiry report in February this year on the Stephen Lawrence murder. I have revisited the recommendations of the Macpherson report and fully endorse what my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, have said. It is worth repeating the words of the report which states,
"that the full force of the Race Relations Act should be fully implemented".
170
The present Bill fails completely the challenge of institutional racism highlighted in the report.
I am afraid that the opportunity presented by the report for radical thinking and root and branch action has been totally missed. Significantly, the Bill does not accompany the extension of the Act with an enforceable legal duty on all public bodies to combat racial discrimination and promote racial equality. Can the Minister explain why this is excluded if the intention is to introduce this measure at a later stage? What are the reasons for not introducing it now?
The Government's approach to equality is not in dispute. Mo Mowlam, in a Written Answer in another place stated,
"The Government are working to transform Britain into a society which is inclusive and prosperous. Eliminating unjustified discrimination wherever it exists and making equality of opportunity a reality for all is at the heart of the Government's agenda. Equality of opportunity is not only inherently right, it is also essential for Britain's future economic and social success. Much has been achieved in the last two years. But we are not complacent. A lot remains to be done. We will continue to stamp out discrimination, remove barriers and improve the position of groups facing disadvantage and discrimination in employment, public life and public service delivery. We will ensure that the right legislative framework and institutional arrangements are in place and that information, guidance and other support is available to challenge discrimination and deliver fair treatment to allow everyone to develop and contribute to their full potential. That is to the benefit of all … in a healthy, modern, diverse society".
She further stated:
"We will avoid unnecessary and burdensome regulation and will promote, encourage and support progress through non-legislative means. However, we will legislate where necessary or desirable when legislative time permits. In doing so, we will be governed by the principles of improving consistency between the protection afforded to different groups by different legislation, modernising enforcement powers, and by the need for the public sector to lead by example".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/99; col. 175W.]
Almost every speaker—it must be a record in any debate—has expressed concern about the omission of indirect discrimination. What further evidence do the Government require?
We welcome the Government's sentiments, but I wonder what consultation took place with the Commission for Racial Equality when Mo Mowlam's reply to a Question was drafted in the other House. The chairman of the commission, Sir Herman Ouseley, who is shortly to retire from his post, has this to say:
"By leaving out indirect discrimination, what the Lawrence enquiry termed unwitting racism, we fear that it will increasingly weaken the ability of the CRE to help in tackling the very issue that the report highlighted".
By concentrating on direct discrimination, the commission would be unable to launch investigations into areas such as the disproportionate number of black people who are stopped and searched by the police.
My noble friend Lord Lester has adequately dealt with the legal and technical aspects of the Bill. He suggested that I should deal with matters related to the criminal justice system. I shall do precisely that.
The policing and criminal justice issues are very important. They are at the heart of our democratic society. If one is discriminated against in employment

171
or in the provision of housing or services, one has a remedy to go to an employment tribunal or to a county court. Police have wide powers which, if they are misused, affect the lives of ordinary people. By excluding indirect discrimination, we are giving a message that it is perfectly lawful for the police to convert ways of using their powers to the disadvantage of people—in particular ethnic minorities—as long as they do not make their racism explicit.
I do not believe that the Government intended such a message to be conveyed for the simple reason that they have a fairly good track record on race relations. Unfortunately, it is not the intent that I question but the effects of the Bill, about which we are all concerned. Call it "sham" or call it "shame", either word clearly describes the inadequacy of the legislation before us.
On the day of the Queen's Speech, Paul Wilson, chair of the National Black Police Officers Association, said at his conference that in his experience most police officers are now very careful not to discriminate directly. If that is correct, then black and Asian people will be left with no redress when they believe that police policies—formal or informal—have resulted in them receiving unfair treatment. It is important to recognise that this perception exists—and the present Bill will reinforce that feeling.
To the credit of the Conservative Party, when we debated the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill a number of speakers from its side of the House talked about the perception of black people, particularly in relation to the courts, and of the need to retain jury trials in either way offences. Similar perceptions exist about the police and other parts of the criminal justice system. We look forward to Conservative support when we move appropriate amendments at Committee stage.
The position of the CPS is probably more complicated in terms of the whole of the prosecution process. Your Lordships will see in the exemptions in the Bill that it probably lobbied quite hard to make it particularly difficult to pursue complaints, even of direct discrimination, where these involved criminal investigations, prosecutions or criminal proceedings.
A decision not to institute criminal proceedings, or any acts leading to such a decision, is excluded; Clause 1 replacing Section 19D. In other words, the Lawrence family would have no redress through this Bill against the acts leading to the decision not to prosecute, or against the decision not to prosecute itself. This is a blanket ban on direct and indirect discrimination.
What recourse is there against the police or the CPS for a black or Asian victim, or the family of such a victim? The Government's answer will obviously be a judicial review or a private prosecution. But look what happened when the Lawrence family tried that. They discovered to their cost that neither proved sufficient or satisfactory.
172
Consider a black prisoner who believes that prison officers are treating him and other prisoners, on a wing where there is a disproportionately high number of black prisoners, more harshly than they treat other prisoners. While on these simple facts it would seem right that the prisoner could bring proceedings under the Race Relations Act, that may not be the case as there are a number of variables that need to be considered. If this treatment occurs in the context of the Prison Service providing "services" to prisoners—that is, meeting daily living requirements, seeing to medical needs, providing education or recreational opportunities—under the existing provisions in Section 20, the prisoner could challenge his treatment as either direct discrimination, because he is black, or as indirect discrimination, because he is on a wing that is predominantly black. If this treatment occurs as part of the Prison Service's functions to maintain prison discipline and to inflict punishment, then the prisoner would need to rely on the new Clause 19B in the Bill, but he would be able to bring proceedings only if his claim was one of direct discrimination. It is hard to envisage how the prisoner would be able to make these fairly sophisticated assessments of his circumstances, which he will continue to read as racism directed against him.
If the prisoner were a Muslim who considered that he or she was being unfairly treated because of his or her religion or a wish to comply with certain observances that are part of the Muslim faith, the Bill would exclude any prospect of challenge or redress since, under the law at present, it is only in reliance on the indirect discrimination provisions of the Race Relations Act that religious discrimination can be challenged. In other words, Muslims are excluded substantially from certain provisions of the Act.
Let us consider a scenario very like that presented to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry as it heard evidence from ethnic minority communities across the country. Mr and Mrs A are an Asian family living on a housing estate where there is a high proportion of black and Asian households. Mr A reports to the police that he and his wife have been victims of a racist incident involving verbal abuse and assault. He identifies the perpetrators as two white youths who live on a different estate on the other side of the main road. When taking down his address, the police officer makes a comment about Mr A's estate as one that is causing the police too much bother; people always complaining for no reason. After a few days the police come to Mr and Mrs A's house, push their way in, roughly grab Mr A and arrest him for assault on one of the youths he had named as his attacker. One of the police officers says, "You on this estate may look innocent but you are always causing trouble. This estate always breeds troublemakers".
After the CPS decline to prosecute Mr A, he is determined to complain under the Race Relations Act about his treatment by the police. Under existing law, the Farah case could enable him to complain under the Race Relations Act about his treatment as a victim of crime. He would need an amendment to the Bill to complain about his arrest. Was his treatment on the

173
grounds of being Asian or because he lived on that estate? If it was the latter, he could not challenge what he was convinced was racially discriminatory treatment.
The Home office this week published statistics under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act that again show disproportionate rates of stop and search. Many speakers have dealt with that issue.
In conclusion, after 23 years of race relations legislation we are still compelled to challenge discriminatory practices through confrontation in courts and tribunals. The Commission for Racial Equality, which is well experienced in discrimination matters, has produced three reviews. If its recommendations are taken on board, it would place responsibility for initiating action for racial equality where it should be—not with the CRE, but with our institutions, large and small, public and private. It would be tragic if we were to miss this opportunity for ensuring that our institutions—in this case public institutions—are protected because we have failed to deal with the crucial omission of indirect discrimination.
6 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is the second Home Office Bill to come before the House in recent weeks. Rather like the last one, this legislation has raised a certain amount of controversy among noble Lords. I remember the Race Relations Act going through this House in 1976. It was then claimed that the Act would outlaw racial discrimination. Discrimination would disappear by enforcement of the law and it would change the views of our society. So perhaps we should consider what has happened over the past 23 years.
Has the Act worked? I would maintain that by and large it has. Society has changed and now Britain is a modern, multi-cultural society. Furthermore, precisely where has the Act worked and where has it not worked? As I have said, I believe that it has worked in society as a whole and in the private sector, and largely in the public sector.
Wearing my City hat, perhaps I may tell the House that our offices represent a multi-cultural society with no discrimination. I am proud of that, and believe that to be the case in most of the City. However, many claim that there is institutional racism and so we must ask: does it exist, and where? Personally, I believe that the word "institutional" is a misleading term, and I do not believe that it ought to mean that.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I was interested to hear what he said about his company in the City. Can he tell the House how many members of racial minorities serve on the board of that company?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I would have to think about that. What I can tell the noble Lord is that there are many working in the company, and that I believe
174
is the best judgment of what is happening in the City. However, different institutions operate in different ways.
I shall return to the subject of institutional racism. I have been concerned about the word "institutional" because I believe it implies that racism is enforced by official rules. Clearly that is not so, for example, in the police. I believe that the Scarman definition is better, although I suspect that the Macpherson definition, if one may so call it, will be the one that is going to be used and accepted. However, whatever one's view of the definition of the word, it is clear that there is certainly an unofficial culture of racism in some parts of society, and it most certainly was prevalent in a small section of the police. However, I want to stress that the vast majority of those working in the police forces of this country are not racist, and it is quite wrong for anyone to suggest that they are.
In a charming and excellent maiden speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, tackled the issue of institutional racism and the various ways in which it has been defined over recent years. The noble Baroness showed clearly the difficulties that surround this area. Interestingly, several noble Lords expressed concern about the public sector. If one casts one's mind back to 1976, I find that situation to be extraordinary. We thought then that the public sector would lead the private sector in abolishing racial discrimination and then the rest of society would follow that lead. However, this evening we have heard from various noble Lords that even the National Health Service has recently been criticised for either direct or indirect racism.
In 1997 the Home Secretary established the public inquiry chaired by Sir William Macpherson into the investigation of the death of Stephen Lawrence and the issue of race and the police service. The report of the inquiry, published in February 1999, and debated in your Lordships' House, made 70 recommendations. These covered the employment and internal practices of the police service, but also included a recommendation that the Race Relations Act 1976 should be extended. The report stated:
"the full force of the Race Relations legislation should apply to all police officers, and that Chief Officers of Police should be made vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their officers relevant to that legislation".
The Government pledged to introduce legislation, and indeed the Minister has done so today. The Bill will make chief officers liable for the acts of constables and will also cover appointments made on the recommendation of Ministers. In principle, we support those proposals.
The main provisions will extend the scope of the Act to public authorities, including the police service. However, it will apply only to direct discrimination and victimisation and not to indirect discrimination. That point has concerned all noble Lords who have contributed to today's debate.
The Conservative Party believes that racial discrimination has no place in our society. We want to see racism rooted out of society in general and the police service in particular. We shall not oppose the

175
legislation and, during its passage through this House, we will raise issues that require closer consideration. Those issues will include the implications of the Bill for the way in which our streets will be policed in the future, and the implications of the Bill for the immigration and asylum system. In future the provisions could lead to a large number of appeals on the grounds of racial discrimination, causing yet more delays.
Furthermore, the Government have not calculated how much the Bill will cost public authorities, stating at paragraph 84 in the Explanatory Notes that this is impossible. We believe that there are likely to be increased costs, both to the public authorities themselves and to the legal aid budget. The Government have described these costs as significant but have said that they will be met from agreed departmental expenditure limits. I do not believe that it is good enough for the Government merely to say that. They must be much clearer about what those costs are going to be. It is no good saying that they will be met out of a departmental budget because the simple response to that statement is, "What is the noble Lord going to cut?"
The subject of racial discrimination within the police force has been at the forefront of the service's planning and assessment since the tragic case of Stephen Lawrence. The Macpherson inquiry highlighted two main ways to improve the situation: first, to improve recruitment from the ethnic minorities; and, secondly, to foster a better public perception of the police by the ethnic minority groups. We certainly support those recommendations. The Home Secretary said in his response to the report and its recommendations that there would be encouragement for applicants from the ethnic minorities, targets for the recruitment of officers and a review of the promotion system within the police service. In July of this year the Home Office published targets which applied to several public services, including the fire service, the Prison Service and the police service. I understand that consultation is still taking place as to the timescale for implementation in the police service. When the Minister sums up the debate, can he give the House a little more information on that timescale?
An important point to consider is the possibility of rising crime if law enforcement is made subject to the Race Relations Act. For example, in the Metropolitan Police the number of stop and searches halved in the period of January to April this year. In January there were over 25,000 stop and searches, but by April there were only 14,000. Those figures fuel the fear that the 16 per cent rise in overall crime in London is related to the unwillingness of police officers, in the aftermath of the Lawrence case, to carry out stop and search.
The police must place law enforcement and public safety at the top of their priorities and they must be able, without the threat of reprisal, to stop and question anyone whom they believe may be involved in criminal activity. We do not believe that the police should be restricted in this way. It appears to make
176
more sense to maintain the overriding good service that the police provide but to enhance the complaints procedure and make it more effective. That would weed out some of the discriminators and improve public confidence in the police service but still allow the vast majority of officers to continue to provide the fair and excellent service which they currently provide.
There could be a problem of double jeopardy for the police with regard to the CRE and the Police Complaints Authority. But at least they will have to work together. Perhaps the PCA should carry out the detailed investigations for the CRE in some or all of its cases. Will the Minister consider that point?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. It must be my fault but I was confused when listening to his speech and comparing it with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. Is it the position of the Conservative Front Bench that the Bill should extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to cover indirect discrimination in the public service? In answering that question, the noble Viscount may be helped by the memory that it was Quintin Hogg, as he then was, in the other place who helped to persuade Home Secretary Callaghan that the original Race Relations Act 1968 should apply to the Crown, including enforcement against the Crown. It was done on an all-party basis. We should be grateful to know whether the Conservative Party supports extending the Bill in a similar way to indirect discrimination in the public service.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if I may, I shall deal in a moment with the point raised by the noble Lord. Perhaps I may conclude my remarks on the complaints procedure. We believe that it should be improved. Furthermore, there seems to be no definition in the Bill of what constitutes a public authority. The Minister said that quangos could be added by order. That seems to be a rather cumbersome process. I wonder whether a definition could be borrowed from the Human Rights Act to make the process easier. It seems that we shall have a long list. When the Minister says "quangos", I am not sure what he means. Will it be the strict interpretation of quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organisations or will it be wider?
Perhaps I may deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. During the passage of the Bill, we shall be able to debate the merits of whether indirect discrimination should be part of it. We will want to consider very carefully any amendments. We will listen to the arguments both from the Liberal Democrats and from the Government. One must note that almost everyone is in favour of including indirect discrimination. The Law Society is in favour, most noble Lords are in favour and most of those outside the House are also in favour. There is concern, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, that the Bill does not do what the Government claim it will do. We will listen carefully to the Government's case for not including indirect discrimination in the Bill. We are not satisfied

177
with the Government's proposals so far but we will certainly approach the issue with an open mind and examine the arguments carefully.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for all the constructive contributions that have been made in the Second Reading debate on this important Bill. It would be remiss of me if al. the opening stage of my concluding comments I did not join other noble Lords in offering my warmest congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, on her contribution to the debate. What shy said was moving and wise. I trust that we will all take careful account of one point which she very tellingly made. She reminded us just how far we have come in the field of race relations; but, importantly, she reminded us just how far we have to go in tackling racism in our society. That is a very important point indeed.
I found the debate constructive and instructive. While the Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out some of the Bill's inadequacies, as he sees them, I think that there are many important parts of the Bill. I think, too, that there is a consensus within your Lordships' House on the value of the steps being taken by the Government in bringing forward the Bill. I have listened carefully to what has been said. Undoubtedly, my colleagues and I will have to reflect further on some of the important points made in the debate. In answering the many points and questions that have arisen perhaps I may say that if, for whatever reason, I miss a point or a question, I shall be more than happy to pursue the matter in correspondence and make available in the Library copies of that correspondence.
Before I deal with specific points, I want to repeat something I said earlier. This important and significant Bill does not pretend to be everything. The Government acknowledge that. We have made promises of further legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits. The Bill fulfils a prior commitment to early legislation made by the Government in response to the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. The conclusions of that inquiry have very much overshadowed the debate today, and rightly so. We believe that that report will lead in the longer term to a significant improvement in terms of individual members of the public being able to hold to account public authorities acting in a racially discriminatory manner. That is the purpose of the Bill. We believe that it will make a real and fundamental difference.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Cope, Lord Lester and Lord Patel, the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, they right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lords, Lord Sheppard, Lord Desai, Lord Haskel, Lord Ahmed and Lord Dholakia, and, somewhat grudgingly, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the issue of indirect discrimination and its omission from the Bill. Many noble Lords raised the issue in terms of unwitting discrimination or
178
institutionalised racism. I wish to be clear on behalf of the Government. We abhor all forms of discrimination. We believe this issue to be paramount.
The indirect discrimination provisions in the original Act were designed to deal with indirect discrimination in very specific fields covered by the Act, such as employment and the provision of goods, facilities and services. In those fields, an unjustifiable requirement or condition, such as an address in a particular locality, could easily and unjustifiably exclude ethnic minorities from jobs and access to services. An unjustifiable height requirement for joining the police force is a good example. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, reminded us just how far that can be taken in some of the service conditions which, in the past, discriminated against Sikhs. The noble Lord was right to remind us of that important issue.
As I explained in my opening remarks, indirect discrimination occurs when there is a requirement or condition which, although applied equally to people of different racial groups, has the effect that the proportion of a racial group that can comply is considerably smaller than that of another racial group that can comply. Such a requirement or condition is unlawful only if it cannot be justified irrespective of colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin, and if it is detrimental to the applicant who cannot comply. These provisions were designed to deal with indirect discrimination in the fields currently covered by the Act: employment, goods, facilities and services. In those fields an unjustifiable requirement or condition, for example, an address in a particular locality, could unjustifiably exclude ethnic minorities from access to jobs and services.
This approach, however, does not fit well with law enforcement where there is no requirement or condition with which an individual must comply. We believe that the widely acknowledged element of discrimination in the stop and search figures is due to the cumulative effects of direct discrimination, whether witting or unwitting, rather than indirect discrimination. That point began to emerge during the course of our deliberations.
I return to the issue of indirect discrimination. We argue that to prohibit indirect discrimination in relation to the functions that will be caught by the new provisions of the Act would have uncertain and potentially far-reaching effects. It is a challenge I o all of us to see how we can work round those difficulties—a challenge on which noble Lords will no doubt wish to test the Government. Any policy or practice that has a different impact on different racial groups because of a requirement or condition would be open to challenge in the courts. As I said, that could include age-based policies; for example, the new deal for young people and special benefits for the elderly; and in addition, any regional policies which balanced the needs of those living in urban areas as against those living in the countryside. Policies that are benefiting ethnic minority communities most could be open to challenge. We believe that to be a significant problem in attempting to wrestle with this crucial issue.

179
The Government believe that a better way of addressing the potential for unjustifiable indirect discrimination is through the promotion of equality. This we are pursuing through administrative action, which will be underpinned by a duty on public authorities—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is essentially repeating the argument he made in opening the debate. I wonder whether he can help me on two matters. First, if it is the case that a public authority is imposing a requirement or condition which hits disproportionately at members of a particular ethnic group, is to the detriment of an individual member of that group and is unjustifiable, what is the policy reason why government Ministers and public authorities should not be under exactly the same duty to justify as the Bar Council, my chambers, the City, local authorities, education bodies, housing authorities, or any other institution? I do not understand the policy reason for shielding the Minister and his colleagues from scrutiny by the independent authority of the courts and the CRE.
Secondly, the Minister has certified under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 his view, which is no doubt based on legal advice, that the Bill's provisions comply with the human rights convention. Will the Minister inform the House, either now or in writing, as to whether the concept of discrimination contained in the European Convention on Human Rights covers indirect as well as direct discrimination? If it does, as I believe is indicated in case law, how can the Minister possibly make a statement under Section 19 that the legislation complies with the convention if it will authorise breaches of Article 14 of the convention, read with Article 5 in relation to police powers and Article 6 in relation to access to justice? Will the Minister be kind enough to consider the second question and let me have a view in writing? So far as concerns the question of policy justification, I should be grateful if he would illustrate that now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his telling intervention. I shall be happy to write to him on his second point. Perhaps I may also reply to him in writing on the first matter that he raised, which bears close inspection. I should like to study his remarks. I should like to give the question careful consideration. It would be wrong to make a comment that subsequently proved unhelpful. We want to be as helpful as we possibly can. Therefore, perhaps I may continue with my general theme. That would be wisest and would take us further forward.
I referred to the issue of stop and search. I want to point in particular to Recommendations 61 to 63 of the Lawrence inquiry and many of the other actions that were recommended. These are being overseen by the Lawrence Steering Group. The administrative actions that will flow from that work and the Government's general commitment to the promotion of equality will
180
be very important in this policy field. When parliamentary time permits and when we have given more detailed and careful consideration to the best way to promote equality, we shall place a proposal before Parliament. That is an important way forward.
Perhaps I may move on from the issue of indirect discrimination and turn to some of the important points raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, was a fraction unfair in his attempt to claim that this piece of legislation is a sham. If the noble Lord thinks further about the matter, he may wish to reconsider that comment. This is the first piece of race relations legislation to come before the Houses of Parliament since 1976. Many problems and issues have emerged in the field of race relations during that period of our political history. Members of the party opposite had the opportunity when they were in government but completely failed to grapple with those important issues. Is it not the case that when the whole appalling business of the murder of Stephen Lawrence occurred, the government of the day had ample opportunity to organise and set up a serious public inquiry into the important issues that have now begun to work their way into our legislative programme and our administrative actions on a daily basis? The party opposite missed that opportunity. To say to the Government that our proposed legislation is a complete sham when it addresses some of the fundamental issues that were raised as a direct consequence of the Lawrence inquiry is hypocritical. I say that in all honesty and integrity.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that having spent 18 years in opposition and two years in government the party opposite has had plenty of time to get these matters right? That has been the complaint during this debate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we contend that we are getting it right. We believe that this legislation is an important instalment in putting matters right after, sadly, many years of neglect. We want to tackle the issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is an accountant. I suspect that he is something of a forensic accountant; he always pays great attention to detail. The noble Lord raised some important questions as well as making generalised comments on our approach. He raised a question on the proposed new Section 19D, which exempts decisions not to prosecute, and claimed that it was possibly too widely drawn. We, too, are concerned about the point and will look closely at ways of ensuring that the exemption is no wider than it needs to be to preserve the role of the criminal courts as the sole forum for determining guilt.
The noble Lord also raised the definition of public authorities. He asked whether private prisons would be left out and what was the position of NHS trusts vis-à-vis England and Wales and Scotland. The Human Rights Act applies an important definition of "public authority", and it started from scratch. The Race Relations Act already applies to certain functions of all public authorities, but where it does not do so, the

181
authorities concerned are listed in the schedule. An exercise is in hand to establish which additional public authorities can be added by order.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he may be able to reflect on this in the light of what he has just said. The Human Rights Act definition of "public authority" is designed to ensure that every public authority, widely defined, complies with convention rights. One of those rights is the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of other convention rights. That includes the right to liberty, no arbitrary arrest by police, the right to fair trial, the right to education, to property and so on. Will the Minister reflect on whether it makes sense to have a different definition in the Race Relations Act in view of the need to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord makes a helpful intervention on which I wish to reflect. He raises an important point about discordant definitions and we shall need to look more closely at it and address the matter.
The issue was raised of quangos and their definition. The way in which we attempted to phrase the legislation provides us with flexibility. If there are new bodies which are public bodies, they can be included within the remit of the legislation.
As regards private prisons, they will be covered. NHS trusts in Scotland are different and have slightly different functions from those in England and Wales which justifies their inclusion in the schedule. Trusts in England and Wales are already fully covered by the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised the question of the costs of the Bill. They related it in part to our commitment. As with many matters, the costs are difficult to predict. The Explanatory Notes refer to the costs being met from agreed departmental expenditure limits which are currently fixed under the existing CSR round. The closeness of our estimates will emerge over time, but I reject the argument that it should be taken as symbolising a lack of political commitment on our part that the costs of implementing the Bill are not greater. We believe that they can be met with existing resources and budgets which have been set aside.
In one of the most intellectually telling contributions, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised important questions. I have already agreed in part to cover them in writing, but he raised other issues with which I may be able to deal this evening.
The race, sex and disability legislation which exists covers indirect discrimination in the non-public sector. The noble Lord asked whether there are any examples of it having harmful effects. I can confirm that I am not aware of any. Provisions against indirect discrimination remain a key part of the Race Relations Act. To outlaw indirect discrimination in the new areas covered by the Bill would have uncertain and
182
potentially far-reaching effects on the Government's ability to make policy. We need to clarify and examine that as time goes on.
The noble Lord also asked about judicial appointments and the appointment of QCs. in which he was interested. He wanted a response. I can confirm that judicial appointments and the appointments of QCs are covered. I am sure that that is helpful to him.
The noble Lord asked about the powers of the Commission for Racial Equality. My understanding is that Section 48 of the Act allows it to undertake,
"a formal investigation for any purpose connected with the carrying out of its duties".
Its duties are to work towards the elimination of discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity and good relations and to keep the Act under review. The commission already has the powers to investigate discrimination by the police, whether direct or indirect, if it so wishes. In those aspects, the Act catches the police.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the powers of the Commission for Racial Equality. Does he accept that there are no enforcement powers under that section? That is why the commission is concerned. Nor can it subpoena witnesses. If a discrimination notice comes in, it cannot issue nondiscrimination notices on an investigation of that type.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that what the noble Lord said is correct and I shall try to check the point. Once the Act is extended, in our view the commission will be able to go further in respect of direct discrimination. Direct discrimination in the case of law enforcement, whether or not intentional, is more likely to fall within the definition of "direct discrimination."
The noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Avebury, asked about the exemption of immigration, nationality and asylum and whether the provision had been too widely drawn. We believe that the existing safeguards provided by Section 41 of the Race Relations Act for acts done by a statutory authority are insufficient to allow the immigration system to continue to operate as Parliament intended. Section 41 protects discriminatory acts which are carried out in pursuance of statutory provisions for ministerial arrangements. That was explained earlier. The courts have adopted a narrow interpretation, as required by law. The operation of an immigration system necessarily requires the exercise of some discrimination by Ministers and appropriately authorised officials. The authorisations are necessarily detailed in operational staff instructions approved by Ministers. It would therefore be impractical to set out in legislation every set of circumstances where discrimination would be required. I trust that that answers the question.
There are other examples such as those covering entry clearance officers overseas who need to be able to treat people differently because of their nationality or ethnic or national origin. That includes countries

183
associated with state-sponsored terrorism or where the country has a track record of hostile intelligence activity. Alternatively, it may be where the country is known to issue passports to non-nationals or where there is a need to provide special treatment or protection to those at risk.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I apologise for being like a jack-in-the-box this evening, but I hope it is helpful to probe a little and give the Minister time for reflection. Does he agree that it is in no sense the policy of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office ever to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their ethnic or national origins? The example he gave was not about discriminating against someone because of their ethnic or national origins. It is an example of making special treatment or a difference in treatment an objective reason that has nothing to do with ethnic or national origins. It would be a disaster if the immigration and nationality department were regarded as having a policy of discriminating on the basis of ethnic or national origin in naturalisation, immigration or anything else.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, my Lords, in a sense the noble Lord adds to my explanation and I find the intervention helpful. However, the general point I am trying to make is that there are occasions when there will be forms of lawful discrimination. There is a difficulty in drafting legislation to take account of that in relation to indirect discrimination. It is a matter for further debate and we can probe the issues more as we progress. I should like to make progress in answering points other noble Lords made in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked whether the Bill would be used to remedy the different treatment of small partnerships under the Race Relations and Sex Discrimination Acts. Partnerships are governed by the employment provisions in the legislation and this Bill addresses public functions that are not currently covered by it. The Government have promised to bring forward further legislation in relation to proposals made by the CRE and others as soon as parliamentary time permits.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked a number of important questions. He asked about Clause 5 which provides for certain cases to be heard by the immigration appellate authority. How could an individual pursue his or her claim for damages in the county court, assuming it is upheld by the immigration appellate authority, if the substantive appeal was not upheld and the person concerned was no longer in the UK? The answer is that anyone from abroad who wishes to bring a claim before the county court will be given leave to enter the UK precisely for that purpose if his or her presence is necessary for the resolution of the damages claim. That position is perhaps not as unusual as it sounds. It happens now in a number of circumstances, for example, in custody cases. Noble Lords will note that the Bill provides that in the case now being considered the county court will presume
184
that there is unlawful discrimination unless the contrary is proved. I hope that that reply assists the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also commented on the Home Secretary's observations on travellers. It is widely recognised that the Home Secretary is committed to the elimination of racial discrimination and hatred wherever it occurs. He has an excellent track record in that respect. My right honourable friend's comments referred primarily to itinerant individuals regardless of race who engage in criminal activity. He sought to say that in that respect no one should be above the law. I am sure that that is something which broadly we all support. The noble Lord also asked whether the Bill would have any effect on Section 33 of the Race Relations Act. I cannot comment on the details of the particular case that the noble Lord mentioned, but the Bill will not have any effect on Section 33 of the existing legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked whether private sector companies would have to be listed separately in the schedule each time they started to carry out public functions. Under Section 19(b)(i) bodies can be added to the schedule by order. That order can refer to bodies individually or by description. In the case of private sector bodies which run prisons, it is our intention to list by description. It will therefore be unnecessary to amend the schedule each time a new or different private sector body contracts with the Prison Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, asked why the Bill did not cover religious discrimination. I am aware that that is a matter that particularly exercises the noble Lord, and it is one in which many of us take a keen interest. The Government are alive to the concerns about religious discrimination and the case put forward that it should be subject to law. This issue raises difficult, sensitive and complex questions. We do not believe that there is a ready answer or quick fix solution to it. We have commissioned research to assess the current scale and nature of religious discrimination and the extent to which it overlaps with racial discrimination in England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked why a duty to promote equality was not included in the Bill. I answered the point earlier but I shall reinforce it. The Government's Statement on equality published on 3rd November explained that they wished to bring forward legislation to introduce a duty to promote equality in a coherent, constructive and thought-through manner. We believe that this suggestion goes far beyond the remit of this Bill and covers other important issues of equality. We want to try to deal with the matter in those terms.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked whether there was a timetable for the Stephen Lawrence action plan. The action plan is being progressed as quickly as possible. We made a commitment to bring forward legislation on those points, and this Bill is an important instalment in that process. We shall meet and match all of the commitments that we made following publication of the Lawrence public inquiry report.

185
This has been a long and interesting debate, which I have enjoyed. I hope that I have answered many of the points and questions that have been raised tonight. The Government will continue to listen. At the outset of the debate I invited people to meet us and discuss some of the issues that they wished to see resolved in the Bill. As ever, our door remains open. In this Bill we believe that we have a pragmatic and workable measure to match an important commitment. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Children and HIV/AIDS
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to help children living with HIV/AIDS.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, just before National AIDS Day this year I chaired a conference at the National Children's Bureau on Children Living with HIV and AIDS. This Question arises as a result of that conference and some of the problems presented there. I am grateful that many Members of your Lordships' House, present and absent, have shown interest in this issue. The problems relate to young people who are themselves, or who have a family member or friend, infected by HIV or AIDS. My Question is concerned with the UK. I am aware that similar and worse problems exist in other parts of the world, particularly poorer countries. Some of your Lordships know a great deal about these issues.
I shall begin with a brief statement on HIV and AIDS statistics in the UK. I shall then discuss some areas of concern with reference to research and the experiences of young people themselves. In the UK 774 children under the age of 15 are known to be infected with HIV. This includes:317 with AIDS. Infection is transmitted largely from mother to child before or during birth or through breast feeding. There has been a marked increase in HIV in children of parents from sub-Saharan Africa. There is no accurate prediction of the life expectancy of these children. Barnardo's estimates that there are more than 4,000 children in the UK whose mothers are HIV positive and that about 500 children have lost their mothers through AIDS.
Several organisations have expressed concern about the multiple problems of children who are infected with, or affected by, HIV and AIDS. For example, the charity Children with AIDS has spelt out concerns such as: children may be ill from taking medication; education is likely to suffer; they may care for a sick relative or visit someone in hospital; the home environment of children may be stressful; children may face fostering or adoption; they may be faced with family bereavement; they may be living in low income families either because of their immigrant status or because the adults have become too ill to work; children may feel that they are not included in
186
information or decision-making about the crisis. Children may also have to keep their own or the family member's HIV status secret at school.
Families who live with HIV and AIDS may have the following problems: prejudice and stigma; fear of confidentiality being breached; economic hardship; uncertainty about the future; fragmented services; cultural and language vulnerability; and limited knowledge of medical treatment and care issues.
The Council for Disabled Children, in its submission to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS, suggested that a national strategy to address the problem of children living with HIV and AIDS should include certain elements. First, there should be health education and promotion to raise awareness and the appropriate information should be provided. Secondly, there should be prevention strategies related to antenatal testing and new combined therapy treatments and decisions about breast feeding, for example. Thirdly, there should be family support policies using multi-disciplinary teams. Fourthly, there is concern about young carers—young people with or without HIV status—who may support and care for one or more family member who is ill. This may impinge on their educational and leisure needs.
In its review last year of support services for HIV-affected families and carers the National AIDS Trust identified three issues: the concerns and needs of those affected by HIV and AIDS in the UK; the existing services for those thereby affected; and the barriers to providing those services. Needs and concerns included the issues of tackling social stigma, isolation, lack of information about HIV/AIDS, emotional trauma such as bereavement, problems of travelling to places of support, particularly in rural areas, pressures on carers, and employment issues. Disclosing HIV status to family and friends appeared to be a source of immense distress.
The survey of service provision was carried out regionally and covered statutory and voluntary provision. The extent of provision varied across the UK with particular problems outside cities. Fewer than 30 per cent of those organisations responding said that they provided specific support services for children affected by HIV and AIDS.
Barriers to service provision were said to be a reluctance by those affected to use services, lack of resources, lack of identification of needs of those affected by HIV/AIDS and poor working links between organisations providing help and support.
The National AIDS Trust summarised the way forward as the need to form a national network with a contact directory for those affected, to provide information perhaps through a publication, and to address the unmet needs, such as isolation, of those affected.

187
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS made recommendations following a series of parliamentary hearings held in July last year. These recommendations included one on social care which stated:
"The specific needs of children living with, or affected by, HIV need to be addressed in a co-ordinated way to deliver appropriate care with a high level of continuity. Social work with families must ensure that work with children and adults with HIV in the same family is well co-ordinated".
Again, there is an emphasis on co-ordination and an intersectoral approach.
Finally, on education and health promotion, last year Brook Advisory Centres carried out some focus group research with 14 to 18 year-olds to gain awareness of their perceptions of HIV and AIDS; what the terms mean; whom they affect; preventive behaviour and sources of information. The major concern of those young people was with pregnancy rather than HIV, and we must be vigilant that HIV/AIDS does not slip off the agenda for young people.
I was particularly touched to read in the Why Me? booklet the stories of those young people who are, together with the demands of school and other aspects of life, responsible for a relative with HIV or AIDS. I conclude with an extract from a contribution to the booklet by one of the young people. I have copies of the booklet if noble Lords are interested in it. She says:
"Writing this story brings me bad memories … My mother was very, very ill—this was in 1994—and nobody knew what she was suffering from. She stayed at home for about two weeks, then went to see her GP—all she got were painkillers. I think this was because she couldn't actually explain what was wrong with her and how she was feeling.
"Then she was put into hospital and she was there for a long time. As I was the oldest in my family my job was to cook for her. I'd go to school every day, come home, start cooking. Then do the same thing again for a few months. At the time I couldn't write or speak English, so I had to keep everything to myself for a very long time. I was never late for school or missed a day, but I never did my homework because there was no time.
"My school started at 8.45am and finished at 3.45pm. I would then get home at 4.30pm and start cooking … I had two other younger people [to cook for as well] … This had to be done every day … My school work was bad, I couldn't concentrate in class. I'd cry on the way home and when I was going to school.
"Then we … got used to seeing her ill … She was at the hospital almost every two to three months, then she'd be out. After a few months she'd be back in there—she called it prison. What was worrying her most was that if the social services took us, she wouldn't see much of us … At the time I was only 13, I felt confused, lost … Then she died … I miss her a lot.
"I only found out that mum was HIV positive five months before her death. She also knew that I knew, but we never talked about it. I had to keep all this to mysel'.
We should be aware that children and families affected by HIV and AIDS are faced with complex and distressing situations. Further help may not cost a lot of money. It seems that if support were more co-ordinated at national and local level and concern put clearly on the agenda, then lives may be improved. I look forward to the discussion and the Minister's response.
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, is asking this Question today. Christmas is a time when many people like to be with their families. It is a time of giving and sharing. I am pleased that, by taking part in this short debate, this small band of noble Lords is sharing some thoughts on the needs of children living with HIV/AIDS.
There are many difficult medical conditions with which parents and children have to contend, but HIV/AIDS is much the most difficult to live with outside a special unit, as it is shrouded by confidentiality. Grieving and coming to terms with the condition has often to be done in private. Hidden grief is so much more difficult to live with. For children it must be even worse.
Many people shun an infection. With HIV/AIDS people's attitudes differ greatly. The very best can come out; and the worst. For people living with HIV that unpredictability among members of the family, schools or the public, can mean insecurity, loneliness and living with a secret.
Last week on the radio programme "You and Yours", I heard a young girl say that there was no education on HIV in her school. Another person said that HIV education was not included as part of the core curriculum. As we live in a period of reform and change, what is the present position about education on HIV in schools? At one conference I attended I heard two head teachers saying that they preferred outside experts to come into the school. If that is not possible in some areas, it is important that teachers are equipped with the correct teaching packs so that they can attempt to cover this sensitive and difficult subject.
For your Lordships' information, I should like to go back in history for a few moments. On 14th July 1983, Lady Dudley asked the first Question in your Lordships' House on the incidence and control of AIDS. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, answered for the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and myself asked supplementary questions. The Minister said that there was no conclusive evidence that AIDS was transmitted by blood or blood products. In 1983 there had been 14 confirmed cases of AIDS.
On 18th March 1985 the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, introduced a debate on prevention and control of AIDS. With other noble Lords, some of whom have now died, I, too, took part. Afterwards, several of us were accused of scaremongering. If noble Lords read the report of that debate—it is available in the Library—they will note that some of the questions we asked then are still being asked today. I refer to the need for counselling, the importing of blood products and the need for adequate education.
Only today a doctor told me that he thought the infection rate of HIV had gone down. Unless the impetus on health education is kept up, society will become complacent and more children and their parents will become infected.

189
Most HIV/AIDS initiatives and funding tend to concentrate on adults. Responses for children have lagged a long way behind those for adults and tend to be fragmented, ad hoc and inconsistent. However, one place which has kept up with the times is the Mildmay Mission Hospital in Hackney. Mildmay was not only the first hospice in Europe for people with AIDS; it was the first and only residential family care centre in the world available to care for the whole family. On many occasions, I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, say that a disabled child can mean a disabled family. Mildmay has recognised that.
The unit, like all the others on the Hackney Road site, is full to overflowing and has a waiting list. It recently opened a further six rooms, thus caring for 12 families. The nursery is oversubscribed. It is registered to cater for 30 children, but the social services will fund only 20. It is open seven days a week, collecting the children in the morning and returning them in the evening. It has to prioritise, depending either on the needs of the children or the severity of the illness of the mother or father.
The children are taken in from the age of 28 days to eight years. They have access to all the services that are provided for adults. However, the bereavement counsellor is especially trained to deal with children. Once a week, a consultant paediatrician from Great Ormond Street visits the centre. It has been found that if the mother has HIV and is given the anti-viral drug AZT in late pregnancy and during labour, and if it is given to the baby for one month, transmission is reduced by 68 per cent. It also reduces trauma to the baby during delivery, which is done by caesarean birth before the 38th week of pregnancy and before the onset of labour. Furthermore, the avoidance of breast feeding reduces transmission.
If the mother's viral load is high, she receives full combination therapy and other measures. If her viral load is low, she receives AZT alone and other measures are taken. It is important that mothers who are HIV positive know that they are. Therefore testing and counselling should be available to all expectant mothers if they believe that they could be at risk.
Another supportive, warm and friendly organisation which helps HIV-positive children and teenagers as well as heterosexual adults is Body and Soul. It has adapted two old wards in the Homeopathic Hospital in Great Ormond Street. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, visited the organisation with me. She was impressed. Young children have their own play area, giving mothers a break. Teenagers receive support and go on interesting holiday breaks.
Psychological support is much needed. Young children and teenagers having the extra discipline of taking combination drugs sometimes early in the morning and throughout the day need some relief and a lot of support. Sometimes they are supporting their ill parents, too. Such good organisations need support to keep going. Perhaps the Minister will also visit them.
190
It was a complex tragedy for the haemophiliacs who became infected with HIV and hepatitis B and C. The biggest new problem for those suffering with HIV and hepatitis C is that they have to take two sets of combination drugs which can react against each other, damaging the liver. The drugs can also become less effective. Historically, the problem has been complex with the infected Factor 8 coming from America, Britain then making its own, and last year Britain deciding to import again because of the new variant of CJD. Is that still a concern?
I want to ask the Minister about the six-week window of testing. How up to date are we in identifying HIV in potential blood donors? Testing will identify HIV only after about six weeks. However, it seems that in the USA infection can be identified much sooner because it has an advanced testing procedure. Are we lagging behind? Is there more we can do to improve our Blood Transfusion Service?
All the families in the Macfarlane Trust have been affected in some way. There are 148 widows with dependent children. Fourteen of the widows are infected with HIV. Just think of explaining to sensitive children what has happened to their fathers. Twelve haemophiliac children with HIV are still living; 39 under the age of 17 died. Of the adults, 785 have died and 454 are still living. I had the privilege to be invited to a private meeting of women affected by haemophilia and HIV. I can assure your Lordships that there is grief, anger, hardship and many family complications. They need everyone's support.
There is much to be done to prevent more children being born with HIV. There is much to be done to support those living with HIV. I hope that the Government will not submerge the real needs of HIV in an overall sexual strategy. HIV needs its own identification and strategy. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a former member of the All-Party Group on HIV and AIDS knows this. I hope that today he will give us hope that the Government will not let HIV slip down the health ladder.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Massey for introducing this short debate on an important issue and I want briefly to address two areas. I had intended to address only one during the nine minutes allotted to me and should have taken perhaps only four minutes. Unfortunately, my noble friend—perhaps I may call him that even though he is a Cross-Bencher—Lord Patel, who is a most distinguished obstetrician, had to leave to attend a meeting and is therefore unable to participate in the debate. I promised that I would try to raise some of the points he intended to make as a leading obstetrician and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and someone much more experienced and weighty than myself.
The first issue concerns children affected with HIV in this country. Each year, about 300 babies are born with HIV and it is clear that we could do more to prevent that. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham,

191
spoke of limiting the infection in pregnant women. The fact is that we are detecting only about one third of the population at risk in pregnancy. In London, about one in 500 births are from infected women. That is true also in Edinburgh. In other parts of the country, the figure is about one in 5,000. It is clear that the high risk groups can be identified during pregnancy and much more could be done by the Government to offer voluntary screening. Too few trusts have clear information about the risks of HIV. Such information is important for two reasons. First, it is clear that one can reduce the chance of infecting the baby substantially by the use of drugs, by the use of caesarean section and by the limitation of breast feeding. Indeed, if such actions are taken, current estimates put the risk at about 7 or 8 per cent, which is low. Without such actions, the risk of infecting the baby is higher.
Secondly, major progress is being made in the area of certain viruses. Surely, it is in the interests of the pregnant woman to know that she may be infected. Research in my own institution at the Hammersmith Hospital, London, shows that we shall acquire better methods of tracking the disease and treating it in due course.
Therefore, I hope that the Government recognise the fact that we should be more active in offering screening services, which are relatively cheap, auditing what is happening as regards their take-up and ensuring that money is spent in counselling and support. We are lagging behind the EU in that respect and we need to do much more. It is rather sad that we are not as good in that respect as other countries.
I must say to the Minister that almost every Royal College—I believe with the exception of the Royal College of Surgeons, although perhaps I am wrong and it is also included—has agreed on the need for better screening during pregnancy. Without that being promulgated in trusts there is a major problem.
The other concern that I want to raise briefly is that this is not only a British issue. Three weekends ago I was face-painting children in an orphanage about 40 miles outside Nairobi. It is difficult to describe to your Lordships what that meant. Each of the children that I face-painted was an orphan because its parents had died from that infection. All the children in that orphanage were infected with the virus. I had on my knees a child aged three-and-a-half, who was the size of my own son when he was about nine months old. The child was constantly coughing; he had open tuberculosis. He was blind, but able to sign what he wanted to us remarkably and he was in amazing control of his environment.
There are 350,000 such children in sub-Saharan Africa. I doubt that that child is actually alive three weeks later, because his tuberculosis was too far gone and untreated. The truth is that it is not only an African problem; we cannot just say that that is Africa. They are real people. Those children are remarkable; when I walked around that orphanage I observed that when they fell over, they wanted to be cuddled. When they wanted to play, they wanted to play with an adult.
192
They were much more open than any British children with whom I have ever come into contact, because they did not have any fear of adults—which is a curious thing—and they were bereft of their parents.
The truth is that we can no longer regard this as a problem of the third world, because, with the exception of poverty, all the other consequences also affect us because those diseases spread to other countries; the bacteria such as tuberculosis, which cannot be treated with modern antibiotics, will spread with air travel. The consequences of poverty in those villages has a knock-on effect in terms of national unrest, strife and war. It is quite shocking—I direct these comments at those noble Lords who have not been to that part of Africa—to see whole villages where no one is working and where no one can care for people who are growing old. It is quite a revelation and one that must drive us to tears.
In one of those areas in sub-Saharan Africa I met a Catholic priest named Michael Meegan—a most remarkable man and a deeply religious Catholic, who demonstrated clearly that by getting into the mindset of the Africans and getting inside the prevalent culture, he could really influence the effect of the transmission of HIV. That is in a country where, for 30p, one can buy a prostitute in Nairobi. Yet he was able to demonstrate, as a Catholic priest, that by giving appropriate condom protection to villagers he could actually reduce the infection.
What is remarkable is that he was doing that with hardly any support and he was carrying out scientific surveys of the results of his work among the African population and publishing it in scientific journals. I found it sad that he told me that he was unable to get in touch with any British Government Minister and that indeed he had not received an answer from the Prime Minister when he wrote to him. It seems to me that we should be listening to such people on the ground much more and offering them as much support as we can, because, as I said, this is a problem for which we all have some responsibility.
7.14 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for asking the Question. I am spurred to contribute to the debate by some unfinished business surrounding a series of Starred and Unstarred Questions which I tabled in 1997, and on which I later corresponded and traded scientific evidence with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House when she was at the Department of Health. The Minister will not be surprised that I take a rather different line from other speakers.
What I was asking two years ago was not specifically directed at children, but it has such general relevance to the problems of HIV and AIDS that it will be helpful to summarise it before looking at children and how they can best be helped. My focus was on long-term survivors. There are a good many of those around, some of whom have lived with a full-blown AIDS diagnosis for years. The curious thing, to a layman, is that no one knows how they have survived,

193
because no one has done the research to find out. Medical scientists, odd though it may seem, do not look at success stories. One reason is the methodological difficulty of retrospective studies. At the time the noble Baroness told me that it was thought that their survival was due to the medical drugs they were taking, but she could provide no evidence. My own impression was different.
Quite apart from the fact that drugs such as AZT are so acutely toxic that it is unlikely that already depleted patients could take them for as long as five years and survive the treatment, there are any number of references in the medical literature to the fact that long-term survivors have shunned antiviral medication. In the nearest thing to a systematic survey, the AIDS activist Michael Callen, no friend of unorthodox methods, reported that of the many survivors he interviewed, only four had ever taken AZT, while all of them had,
"dabbled with what are generally referred to as holistic approaches to healing".
That may not be as surprising as it sounds, given that we are talking about an immune deficiency syndrome and that improving immune status is what holistic medicine claims lo be good at.
Professor Root-Bernstein, also in the US, in Rethinking AIDS, drew attention to studies that achieved remark able results without anti-retroviral therapy, especially using nutrition.
"Amazingly",
he wrote,
"no formal study of long-term survivors … has ever been done".
It seems that a combination of methodology and belief systems has so far deprived us of a crucial area of knowledge which might help to prevent as well as treat AIDS effectively. That is as relevant to mothers and children as it is to those diagnosed in later life.
A presentation by the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, which I chair, also in 1997, underscored those points. Three long-term survivors of HIV or AIDS told how they had turned their back on conventional treatment and remained healthy on regimes which included herbs, meditation, psychotherapy, optimum nutrition and other non-standard approaches. They mentioned two other factors of interest. The first was the unreliable nature of the HIV test, which is amply documented. One speaker said lie had been told he was positive, then negative, then positive, within a short space of time, which was not unusual.
The second factor was the appalling pressure from the medical profession to go down the conventional drugs route. Not only those speakers, but others also with HIV or AIDS, have told of being harassed and intimidated by their doctors. That has added greatly to the stress of living with a serious diagnosis. Almost worse, it has driven many such people right out of the system. Most of those who think differently about treatment now will not go near doctors or hospitals if they can possibly avoid it. That pressure is not only counter-productive in conventional medical terms, but
194
also puts a whole cohort of sufferers beyond follow-up and the research on the holistic methods which alone can determine just how effective they are.
Adults can, I suppose, with difficulty, withstand such pressure. Children, it seems, cannot. I read with astonishment and disbelief this September about the four month-old daughter of an HIV-positive mother who was ordered by a court of law, against the parents' wishes, to undergo a test for the virus, with the strong implication that, if positive, she might be forced to take medication. I find that wholly objectionable in principle, even if it were not for the obvious care and intelligence of the parents; the non-specific nature of the test itself; the evidence of cases of young children who have sero-reverted to negative without any treatment; and the indications that I have already given that a non-drugs approach may have merit.
It is not difficult to find anecdotal evidence, from HIV agencies and in the press, of children born to HIV-diagnosed mothers who remain quite healthy in the absence of anti-HIV therapy. The judge in this case is reported as saying that the family went against "every piece of medical advice". Well, that is their right—I do it myself—even if the advice in question had been certain, unchanging, and demonstrably successful in outcome. Are all those who want to take away the mother's choice to breast-feed unaware that studies are divided on this issue, that adequate vitamin status probably enhances the protective effects of breast milk, and that a recent report in the Lancet suggests that exclusive breast-feeding is in fact the safer course?
I believe one of the principal steps the Government can take to help these children is to defend their and their parents' freedom of choice of treatment. After all, it is not as though 45 billion dollars of drugs-based research has yielded spectacular results. The Government, I think, should use their influence in the fields of health and social services to put a stop to the bullying of parents, and of older patients, who decide to take a different line of treatment. Doctors who say "If you don't take my treatment I have finished with you"—and, my Lords, this still happens—have no place in a civilised healthcare system.
The Government can do more. They can follow up the questions I raised two years ago and look seriously at the results of using non-conventional approaches, not just as palliative medicine, which is how they are chiefly regarded, but as a means not simply of "living with" HIV or AIDS, in the words of today's Question, but possibly of overcoming them as well. This might involve, by way of a start, allocating resources to establish a voluntary data-base of children born to HIV-diagnosed mothers who are thriving with no antiviral therapy, or with alternative therapies.
They could talk to those in the AIDS field who use these approaches and, perhaps more important, do not subscribe to the deadly equation HIV = AIDS = Death, so that they can give balanced

195
advice to all parents that the avoidance of toxic medication is a viable option. I quote a mother from Alberta, Canada:
"I've been HIV-positive, and healthy, for 15 years. The only time I felt sick was when at my doctor's insistence I took anti-HIV drugs for a month".
More specifically, they could urge their medical advisers to get on top of the nutritional literature in this field, so that parents can be advised of the merits of a healthy diet and of vitamin supplementation, which may be one of the few potential treatments inexpensive enough to be made widely available to HIV-infected mothers and children.
In summary, I would suggest—and the Minister may like to consider this and not necessarily reply tonight—that government have a research and information role which could serve to counterbalance the aggressive one-sidedness of current advice about HIV and AIDS. They might be surprised by what this could do for children "living with" these conditions.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Massey for asking this Question and for speaking with such clarity on a difficult and distressing subject. The issue she has raised is one which concerns us all but which many people, unlikely to be personally affected by it, increasingly choose to ignore.
Once erroneously supposed to be a virus peculiar to homosexuals or transmitted through the use of infected hypodermic needles, HIV/AIDS is now spreading most rapidly through the heterosexual population. Where there are heterosexual couples, there will be children. According to BBC Radio 4's "You and Yours" programme last Wednesday, infected people are having children without telling a partner that they are HIV positive. In other words, they are risking giving birth to a child infected with HIV.
It may not have fallen to the lot of many of your Lordships who are not health professionals to have been closely associated with an AIDS sufferer. It has to mine. A very close friend of mine was infected with the virus in San Francisco 15 years ago. He was HIV positive for a while. Full-blown AIDS developed, and he died in 1989.
The AIDS sufferer exhibits the symptoms of a number of distressing diseases; indeed, he or she seems to ape them. They include respiratory and digestive problems, skin trouble, thrush and mouth ulcers, rheumatism and arthritis, weakness and emaciation, among others. There is nothing sinister about that. It is due, of course, to the damaged and ultimately destroyed immune system. Then there is the disfiguring Kaposi's sarcoma, where the sufferer's skin is stained with naevus-like patches.
He or she will also be emotionally and psychologically affected. Anger is a normal ongoing reaction to HIV/AIDS. "Why me?" is a question that cannot be answered but is persistently asked by the
196
sufferer, whose whole personality may seem to be altered by it. My friend, a man of cheerful, sunny character with an enormous capacity for enjoying life, gradually became bitter, morose, savage and often cruel to those around him. The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, mentioned holistic, nutritional and multi-vitamin treatments. I must say that my friend tried almost every available approach of that kind and every type of unorthodox medicine, but in vain.
We must ask ourselves how we would behave towards friends and loved ones if we knew that we had an incurable disease which would most likely end in pneumonia. I do not refer to the pneumonia that would have been the death of our grandparents but which these days we have come to accept will respond to treatment, but the AIDS-related pneumonia which recurs and which, finally, because drugs can no longer help, kills without hope. Children witness this and some know that a similar fate very likely awaits them.
The situation for children with a parent who is an HIV/AIDS sufferer or even two parents with the condition is particularly painful. That is so not only because of the home situation and the demands on the child to perform tasks for which he or she is unfitted, such as nursing, cooking, cleaning and possibly the care of younger siblings, but also because of the fear of HIV/AIDS generally in the population and the superstitions, myths and horror stories which surround it.
The belief is still prevalent that one has only to touch or be in the same room as a victim with HIV/AIDS to risk infection. AIDS is still looked upon by some as divine punishment for being homosexual. Many are convinced that AIDS is a homosexual disease. In this area, the media—particularly television—are unhelpful. Hospital sitcoms regularly show some member of the public or medical staff splashed with an AIDS sufferer's blood. Subsequent scenes of horror and fear are all featured with the maximum sensation. That is the climate in which the children of the HIV/AIDS victim grow up and have to handle their lives.
AIDS is transmitted by sharing injection equipment, by a woman passing the virus on to her baby before or during birth and, as we have heard from several noble Lords, by breast-feeding, and through unprotected sex. Much as they were in the 19th century, sexually transmitted diseases are looked upon by many as disgraceful. Of course, that means that sufferers and those close to them feel unable to talk to anyone about the condition.
Cancer used to be the unmentionable affliction—something one did not talk about. Now it is common (it happened in the case of my friend) after death for the relatives to say that the AIDS victim died of cancer. Children often tell their contemporaries that their parent has cancer rather than the virus. They fear being shunned or cruelly insulted unless they lie. Cancer has become the life-threatening disease which it is fashionable to discuss freely. People declare openly if they are suffering from it. have received treatment or

197
are still under threat from the disease. HIV and AIDS have taken over from it as the illness that must be kept secret.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to lessen the stigma still attached to the virus. What help is given to children obliged to care for HIV/AIDS patients? Do children know that they can consult the National AIDS Helpline and that help is available in Punjabi, Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Gujerati, Cantonese and Arabic, as well English; and that there is also a service for those with hearing difficulties? When such children miss school, is that known to the authorities as a cause for concern? Do they routinely receive suitable and sympathetic counselling? Are they educated in the true significance of HIV/AIDS free from the superstitions which surround it? Are children infected with HIV told of their chances of developing AIDS or not, as the case may be? Is their reaction carefully monitored? Are schools encouraged to discuss that subject with students? How do schools deal with the problem of children's ignorance or knowledge of HIV and AIDS.
According to the programme I mentioned earlier, most counselling organisations are geared to the gay community and few have a scheme designed for heterosexual people. The provision of support is haphazard and HIV/AIDS charity support funds are directed away from research and the direct combating of the virus.
The United Kingdom is a low prevalence country for HIV compared with other countries. In general, Europe is a low prevalence area. Nevertheless, the World Health Organisation estimates that 30,000 adults and children in western Europe were newly infected with HIV in the month of December 1999; 9,600 adults and children in the same area died from HIV/AIDS during the year.
It seems that there has been no national campaign to alert people to the risks and dangers of HIV/AIDS since the so-called iceberg advertisements of the late 1980s. Will the Minister tell the House whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to institute a new campaign with heterosexuals and their children in mind? As my noble friend Lord Winston mentioned, is there not a case for a more general routine screening programme for HIV?
7.31 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for raising this important issue today and for her very moving speech in opening the debate. I am very pleased to see the Minister here today as I know that he has had an extremely busy fortnight dealing with other Bills. Therefore, it is a particular pleasure see that he is taking part in this debate today.
As a member of the all-party group on AIDS and a former council member of London Lighthouse, I believe that I understand the difficulties of adults living with HIV/AIDS. But children are a dimension even larger than that, as the noble Baroness, Lady
198
Massey, made graphically clear in her speech. Indeed, many other noble Lords made moving speeches in the same tenor.
Today has provided us with an opportunity to highlight just how widespread is the problem and, indeed, what needs to be done. The international figures are quite horrific. I know that today's debate is essentially domestic but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made clear, they are of major importance. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, demonstrated that in a very telling speech. We should put matters in an international context. This year in the order of 570,000 children under the age of 15 have been newly infected with HIV. There are 1.2 million such children now living with HIV/AIDS and this year there have been around 470,000 deaths of such children from AIDS.
If we can develop ways of coping in this country, perhaps we can use that experience in order to help developing countries with their problems, which are of an even greater dimension. But even though our problems are not quite so large, one in 500 births in London now is to HIV-infected women. Every single one of those children with HIV/AIDS is an innocent victim who must be treated, cherished and helped to live as full a life as possible.
Some of the individual stories of the lives of families with children who are HIV positive are quite harrowing. Many, indeed it may be most, families must keep their plight secret for fear of stigmatisation. Many children with HIV themselves see their parents and siblings die of AIDS as they grow up. In the meantime, they act as carers for other infected members of their family. Those children are at risk, as has been illustrated during the debate, of suffering from a great deal of stress and isolation.
There was a very moving article in the Independent in August this year which talks of two 15 year-old girls, Bella and Lizzie, who were born HIV positive. Lizzie was told only recently at the age of 14. Bella was told at the age of 9. Both young women have to keep their condition secret from their friends. For both, despite new treatments, the future is cloudy. They wonder whether they will ever be married and have children. Bella takes 105 different pills every single week. Previously, she had been in and out of hospital with various complications, but until she was told, she had no idea why.
An article in the Observer at the same time talked of Elizabeth who, like Lizzie, was told when she was 14 years old. No one previously thought that those children would survive. Now we must make sure that they have a future. Those are just individual case histories, but that was confirmed by extremely well-done research carried out by the National AIDS Trust last year, which has been referred to by several noble Lords.
In terms of prevention, we welcome the Government's adoption of targets for voluntary screening of 80 per cent by 2003 for HIV/AIDS during pregnancy, which was adopted in August this year. But will there be adequate counselling for those tested HIV positive? We have a long way to go from the

199
current 30 per cent, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what funding has been allocated to that screening process.
I also welcome the recently announced campaign to encourage more mothers to take the test to be carried out in conjunction with the Royal College of Midwives. But a substantial proportion of those mothers come from developing countries; have English as a second language; or are asylum seekers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, made clear, communication needs to be available in the appropriate language.
In terms of ensuring that children born of mothers who are HIV positive are not themselves infected, I wonder whether we should not take a leaf out of Eire's book. It is almost four years since an HIV-positive child was born in Eire. Should we not study the experience there?
As regards treatments, there is much food for thought in what the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, has said. But the case, as for conventional medicine, needs to be demonstrated scientifically. In the meantime, I believe that families need to have access to the best possible information on effective treatments. I do not believe that anyone is talking of compulsory treatment. But there are difficulties when children simply do not understand what condition they have.
On conventional treatments for young people, a recent report in the Observer said that health authorities are having to fund combination therapies by,
"making desperate cut backs in spending on AIDS prevention, health education and needle sharing programmes for drug users".
Dr George Kinghorn, the clinical director for communicable diseases at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, said, "It's crazy, absolutely crazy, but we have no choice". That is deplorable enough relative to adults, but even more so with children and young people. Those new combination treatments offer real hope to young people growing up with HIV/AIDS. Will their hopes be dashed because of postcode prescribing?
As to support services for families, the National AIDS Trust report last year made very clear what was needed and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made clear, better understanding and co-ordination will go an extremely long way towards improving those services. The beacons of treatment mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, such as Mildmay hospital, are what we should all like to see for those children.
I want to end today by paying tribute to those voluntary organisations working in this field. They are a great source of help and comfort to those children and they need our strong support and commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made it clear that we lag behind Europe. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, made clear, this issue is not simply related to the health service, but crosses government departments. The education services need
200
to understand what is expected of them if these children are to come out of the closet. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
7.49 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, for drawing our attention to this terrible problem. At the outset I declare my interest in the subject. I am Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Mildmay Hospital in Hackney, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has kindly made reference.
In the mid-1980s we opened as the first hospice for people dying of AIDS in Europe. At the outset we decided to try our best to avoid the mistake of failing to care for the carers. We remembered the situation of one hospital which had the excellent idea of providing a hostel for people undergoing outpatient radiotherapy. They also wisely provided a warden to look after the radiotherapy patients. Of course, he found himself involved with the patients, discussing their fears, their worries and their bad experiences. Unfortunately, the authorities failed to appreciate that it was necessary to look after the warden. Within a few months the strain took its toll and he had a nervous breakdown. At the Mildmay we have taken particular care to care for the carers with trained counsellors and ministers from various local churches. Even so, it proved an uphill task.
So far, I have confined my remarks to talking about caring for the professional carers. Nurses, doctors, cleaners and administrators are all involved. However, the debate is about caring not for the professional carers but for the children who do the caring. As most speakers have emphasised, one of the most important aspects that has not been addressed is the issue of children whose parents have AIDS, but the children are not infected. Those children may not be infected, but they are very much affected. At the Mildmay Hospital our experience is that when the mother becomes sick often the other partner disappears which results in some affected children being the young carers to their mother and to their siblings.
Such children are presenting to us with serious emotional problems. In most cases nothing is done for them because they are not acknowledged as children with special needs. Clearly, they have tremendous unmet needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned the charity called Body and Soul which was founded three years ago. It does a great job trying to help some of the children.
The majority of children who live with HIV and AIDS are the children of parents who have existing problems. In the case of maternal transmission the mother may be an immigrant or a drug user or an ex-drug user. On reaching puberty the children need to be advised about the transmission of the infection. That marks these children as different. The parents and teenagers fear that people will find out about their HIV status. The fear of breaches of confidentiality is overwhelming for parents and children because such a stigma and so much prejudice exist in this country to

201
which the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, has already drawn our attention. We have experienced that stigma in Hackney where families have shared their information with so-called friends and have been identified and targeted and persecuted.
On the treatment of the children, there are problems concerning compliance, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has mentioned. Often they have to take a great number of drugs of different varieties, some before meals and some after meals and it all becomes rather complicated. The mother herself may be HIV positive and may have been traumatised through feelings of guilt at having infected her child.
At Mildmay we have a purpose-built nursery for children under the age of eight who have HIV positive parents and for children who are infected. The nursery takes about 30 children every day and there is a large waiting list. Currently, it is 50 per cent funded by voluntary donations and the rest of the funding is from the health authority, but that funding is considered to be at risk as the health authority says that social services should look after those children who are not actually infected. However, they are certainly affected and sometimes they are the only carers of their sick mother and the other children.
Children in the United Kingdom have access to prophylaxis and treatment as required, but we need to recognise that those children are born not only with a physical condition which affects their lives even if they receive treatment, but with a condition that is also socially disabling because of the continuing prejudice related to HIV. Although such children may take antiretroviral combination therapies, their lives are still affected because they tire easily, cannot keep up with their peers and succumb to all kinds of intermittent infections. Noble Lords will appreciate the enormous problems that such children face and the great strain under which the staff at the Mildmay work, ably led by Dr Jeanette Mead way.
As we were treating a large number of Ugandan women and children, the centre at Mildmay attracted the attention of President Museveni of Uganda. On seeing the place he asked us if we would build a similar centre in Uganda. Of course, we readily agreed, not considering from where the money would come. Under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, the ODA Minister in the previous government, we were able to build a splendid, purpose-built outpatient and teaching centre. That was completed last year at a cost of £3 million. The present Minister of DfID, Clare Short, has continued to give magnificent and robust support to that Ugandan project. It is run by a former matron—a good old-fashioned matron—Ruth Sims, and medical directors, Dr Veronica Moss and Dr Catherine Sozi of Uganda. That splendid team battles away all hours of the night and day. We have to take great care of the carers themselves because of the emotional strain.
In September I visited the children's clinic in Uganda and my experiences were much the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. There were 30 children, all with AIDS, many of them dying and all
202
were orphans. Seventy per cent of them had tuberculosis of the lungs; many had widespread scabies, shingles and there were several cases of malaria. They have no resistance to such infections. The good news is that the diagnosis of malaria is made in five minutes, which is a good deal better than most London teaching hospitals.
The new drugs which are partially effective against AIDS cannot, of course, be afforded, but at least most of the complications can be treated—tuberculosis, malaria, shingles and scabies. That greatly improves the quality of what little life is left. All the children are given a large meal every day and there is a special play centre for them. The doctors, nurses and administrators play with the children and read to them. I found it a most moving scene. All have lost their parents and they are cared for by relatives, who are often reluctant to look after them, or by other children.
Although the problems in Uganda are much greater than they are here, the stigma of AIDS there is much less than it is in London. As noble Lords know, some African countries may lose one third of their population through AIDS. So although our problem here is much less, it is totally unacceptable that there is so little provision for the child carers who are looking after brothers, sisters and parents.
Will the Government issue clear guidelines to health authorities and social services so that they can work together to help those children, both affected and infected? And perhaps I can reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell; that is, we need to repeat the successful public health campaign of a few years ago and alert the population to the fact that the AIDS problem still exists and the dangers are as great as ever.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Massey for raising this extremely important issue of children and HIV, and thank all speakers for their positive and moving contributions to the debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that this is a time of giving and sharing. It is also a timely debate because the Government are currently developing an HIV/AIDS strategy.
The Question asked tonight offers an opportunity to raise issues the House would like the proposed strategy to address and for me to attempt to give some answers. I thank my noble friend for drawing to my attention the booklet Why Me? that she launched on 29th November. I hope that we can arrange for all noble Lords who have spoken to be supplied with a copy. It sets out the testimony of children who are either infected or affected by HIV in order to raise awareness.
My noble friend talked of issues for young people in relation to fostering and adoption, some of the emotional stress with which they have to cope through not being provided with information that is useful to them, and also the stigma involved. I learnt more from

203
reading the booklet, which is extremely moving, than any number of heavy tome guidance documents. It deserves the widest possible circulation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the number of children involved may be small but the burden they bear is great. The HIV/AIDS strategy thereby provides an opportunity for the Government to think holistically in relation to how we can help them. If I bat some of the questions asked tonight into the strategy, that is not because I am running away from giving an answer; it is simply that I shall make sure that this debate is drawn to the attention of officials working on the strategy and that the constructive points we heard tonight are considered with care.
It may be helpful if I read out some of the headings to be covered by the strategy. It will begin by looking at the national picture on HIV/AIDS; what data are available; the levels of reporting of information and public access to it. It is important to have an effective information base line on which to work in the future. We will be looking at tailoring prevention efforts to the different needs of people in different population groups. Also, we will be addressing issues of social exclusion—mentioned by a number of noble Lords tonight—which prevent people coming forward for testing and accessing services.
We will look at treatment and care in relation to the standards that are used and can be reasonably expected regardless of how the services are delivered. I shall pick up the issue of counselling in that respect raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. We will also look at health authorities' and local authorities' legal duties to co-operate and how the new joint finance arrangements can be used to deliver seamless prevention, treatment, care and social support services. In that regard, I shall examine the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in relation to the problems he identified in terms of health and local authority support arrangements for centres like the Mildmay. If he cares to send me information we shall certainly feed that in.
We shall look also at how we engage and empower the voluntary sector and at the performance management of the NHS to ensure that its services are effective, adequate and meet the wishes and needs of users. We shall be looking particularly at the role of users in service development. That is crucial if we are to obtain the right kind of service with the right kind of support and effective counselling. That is so important. We shall look also at the implications of the work of other government departments; for instance, the Home Office policy on HIV positive prisoners and the DfEE in relation to education—a point to which I shall turn in a moment.
Within all of that, as my noble friend Lady Rendell suggested, we will have to focus on the needs of children as a group. I can assure noble Lords that the messages that have been shouted loud and clear tonight will be taken on board. One of the most important points—touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lady Rendell—
204
concerns the health promotion work the Government need to do in this area. It is important that it be research-based; that it reflects the latest epidemiology; and that it is rigorously evaluated. Of course, as part of the NHS's general health promotion work, we expect health authorities and other bodies to take a vigorous approach. But we also provide funding of almost £3 million for the Health Education Authority and others to undertake health promotion campaigns and supporting work.
Work done by the HEA targets young people from 16 to 25 years. It includes information resources on safer sex, including the benefits of condoms, advice that should be sought if a young person thinks they might have been at risk of having unsafe sex and overcoming peer pressure to have sex. Campaigns have also involved work with young people's magazines, national radio and the National Union of Students. Earlier this year the HEA launched its safer sex website and a new safer sex resource aimed at holidaymakers. However, I take the point raised by a number of noble Lords regarding whether or not the overall effect is sufficient in terms of current public perception of the risks. That is something I expect the strategy to look at.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the Minister leaves education, can he say whether the core curriculum is part of the strategy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is an important point. It leads me on to the issue of stigma to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lady Rendell particularly referred. There is no doubt that children, families and individuals are often faced with the considerable extra burden of stigma, discrimination and social isolation. That can occur not only within the communities where they live, but also in the wider social context. Clearly, our nationally-funded health promotion work aims to overcome that by providing clear information on how HIV is and is not transmitted. Some of the public mass media campaigns have helped to contribute to a more tolerant social climate. But I accept that there is room for improvement. As I said earlier, the health promotion issues will be an important component part of the strategy.
That leads me on to the issue of education. The noble Baroness will know that sex education is a compulsory component of the core curriculum in secondary schools. But the specific content of that sex education by a school is the responsibility of the school governors in association with teachers and parents. It may involve issues surrounding HIV/AIDS, but also it may not. I said earlier that one of the important components of the strategy has to be the contribution other government departments can make. I hope that as a result of the strategy we will be enabled to have discussions with the Department for Education and Employment. But, of course, what can be done has to rest in the law and the regulations applying to sex education. I very much share the noble Baroness's concern in this area.

205
My noble friend Lord Winston and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, graphically described some of the challenges faced by other countries. I was very struck by what both noble Lords had to say. If my noble friend wishes to provide me with information regarding the letter that has not received a reply, I shall certainly do my best to ensure that it does receive a response.
In responding to this particular point, I think it would be helpful i f I described the communiqué issued by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting on the area of HIV/AIDS. This was an important communiqué, which viewed HIV/AIDS as a global emergency with heads of government personally pledged to lead the fight against it. The communiqué emphasised measures, especially preventive measures, and urged that greater priority be given to vaccine prevention. In addition, and in line with that, we have confirmed our grant of £14 million over five years to the International Aids Vaccine Initiative.
Moreover, DfID is giving priority to sexually transmitted infection prevention for all through essential information services, care and commodities. I was glad to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, about the support that. DfID has been able to give to Mildmay. I am very encouraged by that. Clearly, if there are other ways in which we can support international efforts, we would very much want to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about blood testing and the differences between the United Kingdom and the United States. Perhaps I may tell her that the National Flood Authority is actively assessing several methods of advanced testing to continue to ensure a safe blood supply. However, I shall be happy to write to the not le Baroness with further details on that matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, raised the issue of whether more effort should he placed on looking for less toxic complementary medicine alternatives and stressed the fact that many long-term survivors of HIV/AIDS are using this approach. I am advised that there are two groups of HIV/AIDS patients who are often described as "long-term survivors". First, about 5 per cent to 8 per cent of HIV infected individuals are long-term, non-progressors who survive for at least 10 years after infection. They are either asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. I am advised that there is most likely a genetic factor at play here, such as not carrying the genes which code for HIV cell receptors.
Secondly, patients who survive two years or more after an AIDS diagnosis are referred to as "long-term AIDS survivors". With the widespread use of combination theories, as other noble Lords have suggested, the survival time increases. I accept that many HIV/AIDS patients have found complementary therapies helpful. I give way to the noble Earl.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should just like to point out that some survivors of frank AIDS diagnosis have been
206
around for five years or more, which is some time longer than the combination therapies have actually been in existence.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not seek to say that the answer I am giving is a definitive and complete response to the points raised by the noble Earl. I am merely suggesting that certain factors need to be taken into account. The noble Earl and I have debated previously the issue of the Department of Health's research programme. The noble Earl will know that there is a procedure under which applications for research are considered and that the R&D programme does fund a number of research projects in relation to the use of complementary medicine.
In relation to the High Court ruling mentioned by the noble Earl, I must tell him that we do not comment on individual cases. We were not party to the case brought by Camden Council social services. In such circumstances, local agencies decide how to respond to individual cases, taking all the facts of the case into account.
As far as concerns the article in the Lancet mentioned by the noble Earl on infant feeding and mother-to-child transmission, I know that that has caused much comment. I should point out that the article was a South African study, which suggested that exclusive breast-feeding carried a significantly lower risk of vertical transmission of HIV than a mixture of bottle/breast and bottle-only feeding. Previous results from South Africa indicated that the highest rate of HIV transmission was an exclusively breast-fed instance. My advice is that recent results certainly need careful assessment.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on the contribution of Mildmay. The noble Baroness is constantly inviting me to visit centres. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is agreeable, I would be very pleased to do so in this case because, clearly, there is much to learn. I was especially taken by the noble Lord's remarks about caring not just for young carers but also for professional carers. As regards the NHS, we sometimes forget the pressures that are placed upon so many of our staff when they deal with such stressful and tense situations.
A number of questions were raised about our approach to prevent transmission in the first place. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Winston suggested, anti-retroviral drugs, delivery by caesarean section and avoiding breast-feeding all reduce the risk of mother-to-baby transmission. Together, their effect is to reduce the risk of transmission from 25 per cent to less than 5 per cent.
My noble friend Lord Winston asked about our ante-natal screening policy. The previous policy was to offer an HIV test only to pregnant women at high risk. The policy was clearly not working, as 70 per cent of HIV infected pregnant women were not identified. This meant that those women could not be offered measures to reduce the risk of their babies becoming

207
infected; nor could they be offered advice about treatment for their own infection. The advantage of the new policy to offer an HIV test to all pregnant women means that all women are treated equally. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned, we have set a national objective to reduce the number of babies born with HIV by 80 per cent by the year 2002.
In relation to resources, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we have allocated £233 million for the treatment and care of people with HIV/AIDS in England. Those allocations take into account the associated costs of the new combination therapies. However, I should also point out that we are currently considering the recommendations of the Stock-Take Group on the funding of HIV/AIDS treatment and care. We hope to make an announcement shortly in that regard.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may turn to a crucial point of importance regarding the support for young people as carers. During the past two years we have discussed on a number of occasions in this House the crucial importance of supporting carers. How much more important is it to support young children? The National Strategy for Carers aims to ensure that children whose relatives have specific needs arising out of disability, or health conditions, enjoy the same life chances as all other children in their locality in terms of education, welfare and development. This requires local authorities to identify children with additional family burdens, to raise awareness among professionals of the many sensitive issues around this area and to provide services that are geared to ensure that those children's education, general development and their life chances do not suffer.
208
So we are developing—and have developed—a set of policies that we hope will tackle those issues. The Department for Education and Employment is working with the Carers National Association to identify good practice in existing young carers' projects in schools. We are also working to ensure that local authorities recognise the need to sustain and enhance the number of young carers' projects, and to ensure in particular that they have access to leisure and recreational activities. We also expect children's services plans to set out local support that ought to be available.
In addition, we are currently looking at ways in which we can improve awareness training about young carers for general practitioners. I very much take the point raised by one noble Lord earlier about the crucial importance of GPs, but how they cannot play that role if they do not have the right information. That applies not just to general practitioners but also to primary healthcare teams, social workers and teachers both at the time of their initial training and throughout their subsequent career development.
The clock ticks on. I am sure that I have spoken for far too long. If I have not replied to specific points—we shall read this debate carefully—I give an assurance to noble Lords that they will be fed into the strategy. The aim is to produce fairly soon some broad issues which will be followed by a more detailed consultation document.
I sum up. The Government fully recognise the issues and concerns which noble Lords have raised. I appreciate in particular the initiative of my noble friend Lady Massey in introducing this debate. She has done us a great service. We shall take on board the comments which have been made.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.

  Burundi
  Burundi
  United States Missile Defence System
  United States Missile Defence System
  European Defence Initiative
  European Defence Initiative
  Overseas Territories Citizens: British Citizenship
  Overseas Territories Citizens: British Citizenship
  Iran: Death Sentences
  Iran: Death Sentences
  Iran: Newspaper Closures
  Iran: Newspaper Closures
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Yugoslavia: Exception to Arms Embargo
  Yugoslavia: Exception to Arms Embargo
  Apex Rail Fares
  Apex Rail Fares
  Criminal Courts: Review
  Criminal Courts: Review
  Financial Services Industry and EMU Membership
  Financial Services Industry and EMU Membership
  Kerosene and LPG: Climate Change Levy
  Kerosene and LPG: Climate Change Levy
  Insurance and Genetic Testing
  Insurance and Genetic Testing
  Training Courses: VAT
  Training Courses: VAT
  European Union Petrol Taxes
  European Union Petrol Taxes
  Research Council, 2 December
  Research Council, 2 December
  Takeover Panel
  Takeover Panel
  Takeovers: Draft Directive
  Takeovers: Draft Directive
  Colombia: Displaced People
  Colombia: Displaced People
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Prison Service: Quantum Project
  Rough Sleepers and Hostel Bedspaces
  Rough Sleepers and Hostel Bedspaces
  Rural Poverty
  Rural Poverty
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  Bypass Construction
  Bypass Construction
  Discrimination: Directive Proposal
  Discrimination: Directive Proposal
  MAFF: Environment Group
  MAFF: Environment Group
  Secondary School Pupils in Independent Schools
  Secondary School Pupils in Independent Schools