Sitting of 16 December 1999

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

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Derek Twigg: How many people he estimates will be eligible for the working families tax credit in the north-west in the next 12 months. [101765]
    Dr. Nick Palmer: How many people have contacted the working families tax credit response line in the east midlands. [101772]
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What assessment he has made of the number of people benefiting from the working families tax credit in Liverpool, Riverside. [101773]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I understand, Madam Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed you and the shadow Chancellor that he is at the G20 meeting in Berlin and therefore is not with us today. He is representing the Government at the Finance Ministers meeting.
    It is estimated that in 2000–01—the first full year of the working families tax credit—about 200,000 families in the north-west will be in receipt of the credit.
    The response line for the working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit had handled 780,000 inquiries nationally up to 30 November. In the Central and Anglia TV regions, the response lines have handled about 162,000 calls. A more detailed breakdown is not available.
    Reliable estimates for the number currently in receipt of the working families tax credit in Liverpool, Riverside are not yet available, but, on the basis of the known family credit figures for that constituency and expected eligibility nationally for the working families tax credit, the estimated number who may be eligible is 2,600 families.
    Mr. Twigg: Is my hon. Friend aware that almost half a million children in the north-west live in households that earn less than half the national income, and that thousands
    380
    in my constituency live in poverty? My constituency has the highest child mortality rate in England, so poverty is an important issue to me. Is there not a sharp contrast in the approach of the Government and that of the Opposition, who did nothing during their 18 years in office, whereas we have made a start on attacking poverty with the working families tax credit, the new deal for lone parents and a record rise in child benefit? Will my hon. Friend give me a guarantee that the Government will give the highest priority to the attack on poverty?
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend may know, the combination of the rises in child benefit, the working families tax credit and the minimum wage will lift 800,000 families out of poverty. The Government have declared their aim of eradicating child poverty over the next two decades. That is in stark contrast to the approach of the official Opposition, who say that they will abolish the working families tax credit and take all that money away from those families.
    Dr. Palmer: All those with whom I have discussed the working families tax credit are extremely positive. The main reservation is whether we will succeed in reaching the great majority of those who are entitled to it. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we are doing all that we can in that respect, or could we use Inland Revenue records to contact people who may not yet have claimed, or undertake other activities for that purpose?
    Dawn Primarolo: As I said, the response line has taken 780,000 calls. The number of calls to the tax credit office is 1.5 million, the number of applications issued is 450,000, and the number of claims returned by 30 November 1999 for working families tax credit is 320,000. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will be watching closely to ensure that all the families entitled to the working families tax credit receive it.
    Mrs. Ellman: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. It is clear that the working families tax credit, together with employment opportunities, allows individual families a way out of poverty and boosts local economies at the same time. What additional support may be available through child care support offered by the Government? Can my hon. Friend make an assessment of the implications for my constituents in Liverpool if the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats continue with their opposition to the working families tax credit, which they displayed by voting against it at various stages?
    Dawn Primarolo: As my hon. Friend knows, the working families tax credit is linked to a child tax credit to pay for child care arrangements. That has been hugely welcomed by families who want to return to work and by employers, who see that as an advantage to them in the recruitment and retention of valued staff. The official Opposition condemn the working families tax credit and announce that they will withdraw it, but they will have to explain to those people affected why they will force on them a tax rise averaging £24 a week, and why they will deny women access to paid child care so that they can stay in the labour market.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Labour Members do not seem to understand that the working families tax

    381
    credit merely replaces family credit, which was a successful benefit doing exactly what the Government claim that the working families tax credit will do—make work pay. One of the reasons why the Opposition dislike the working families tax credit is that it extends the benefit far too high up the income scale and includes people on top rate tax. Will the hon. Lady tell us how many people in the north-west who pay top rate tax will receive the working families tax credit, including the number of people earning £38,000 a year, which is the highest income on which one can still be eligible for the working families tax credit?
    Dawn Primarolo: There we have it: the official Opposition now confirm that they will abolish the working families tax credit. As the hon. Lady knows, the total number of people eligible to claim family credit was 800,000; working families tax credit will go to 1.4 million families. Of those families claiming the working families tax credit, 70 per cent. have a total income of £17,000 or less a year. She will need to explain to them why she wants to put their tax up and take that credit away from them.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What estimate has the hon. Lady made of the impact on the average level of wages in the north-west, the east midlands and Liverpool, Riverside of the working families tax credit? Has she given any consideration to the possible increase in the level of informal cash payments between employer and employee?
    Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the minimum wage has had the biggest impact on poverty pay in Britain—another policy that the Opposition opposed and say that they will revoke if they are ever elected. The hon. Gentleman should concentrate on how to deal with poverty wages and support families. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."[The answer is that the Opposition do not want to support families or tackle poverty.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Could the Paymaster General explain why the working families tax credit is shown as a tax cut in the national accounts even though all the national and international accounting conventions and the Office for National Statistics insist that it should be shown not as a tax cut but as an item of public expenditure? Will she confirm—I see her hastily conferring with her right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—that, if those fiddled figures are corrected, the increase in the tax burden since the general election, to which the Chancellor, although he is absent today, has finally admitted this week, would be even higher than has been recorded, both now and by the end of the Parliament?
    Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the calculation for the tax credit follows the same procedure as, for instance, mortgage interest relief at source did under the Conservative Government. Instead of arguing and pursuing something that he knows to be incorrect, he will need to explain to working families in his constituency why he wants to take the credit away from them, increasing their tax burden by an average of £24 a week.

    Employment (West Midlands)
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: What assessment he has made of the impact of his macro-economic policies on levels of employment and unemployment in the west midlands. [101766]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): In the west midlands region, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, we have created a sound and credible platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the election, employment in the west midlands has risen by 53,000 and unemployment has fallen by 14,000, both broadly in line with UK trends.
    Mr. Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that, in Worcester, unemployment has fallen by 38 per cent. since April 1997? Would he put that down solely to the stability brought about by giving the Bank of England independence, or would he, like me, agree that positive contributions have also been made by the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the new deal for the unemployed and the £40 billion extra money to be spent on our schools and hospitals?
    Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. On the platform of stability that we have created by the decision to which my hon. Friend refers, 193,000 people in the west midlands have benefited from the national minimum wage, 125,000 families have benefited from the working families tax credit, and 36,000 young people have been helped off the dole and into jobs thanks to the new deal. Let us also applaud the businesses in the west midlands and their work forces for making a success of that region's crucially important economy.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Table B9 of the pre-Budget report shows that, despite recent reassurances, the take from fuel duty will increase dramatically from £21.6 billion this year to a massive £23.5 billion—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I do not have the material before me, but is it related to the west midlands?
    Mr. Paterson: Yes.
    Madam Speaker: As a west midlands Member, I know where the boundaries are, and I wanted to make quite sure.
    Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to share the same region as you, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister name one business in the west midlands that the Government's vicious attack on all road users has made more competitive; and will he cite the number of people who have been made unemployed in the west midlands haulage industry?
    Mr. Smith: Last month, Johnson Automotive announced another 500 jobs and a new manufacturing plant in the west midlands to produce parts for the new Mini. That is only one of many firms that have extra confidence in the west midlands. I am sure that the

    383
    hon. Gentleman's constituents, like others in the region, will welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision to end the fuel duty escalator that the hon. Gentleman's party introduced, and to ensure that any increases above inflation will be dedicated to public transport and road building, for the benefit of his constituents and the success of a critically important economy.

    Mutual Societies
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent discussions he has had with the Building Societies Association regarding mutuality. [101767]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I had the pleasure of addressing the Building Societies Association annual lunch on 11 November. I have been engaged in regular correspondence with building societies, setting out the Government's position on a range of issues.
    Mr. Pike: Although the measures that the Government have recently taken to protect building societies and the increasing number of people who sign motions are welcome, do my hon. Friend and the Government endorse the decision of members of the Leek United, who have clearly said no to predators and carpetbaggers? Does she agree that that shows that the Government and building societies believe that long-term advantages outweigh short-term cash in hand, and that there is a future for mutuality and building societies in the 21st century?
    Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for our moves to amend secondary legislation, and I emphasise that I share his view of the role that building societies play. We acknowledge the variety and choice that building societies bring to the savings and loans market. They enhance competition to the consumer's benefit. Smaller societies in particular can provide a regional focus and high-quality finance jobs in our regions. They often have a close understanding of their local markets, and we value their contribution to the UK economy.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Andrew Reed: What discussions he has had since the Cologne summit with the IMF on debt relief for the world's poorest countries. [101769]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): My right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development wrote to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund and the president of the World Bank on 1 December to press for countries to be brought forward quickly under the new debt relief initiative agreed at this year's annual meetings. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor met the managing director of the IMF and the president of the World Bank on 7 December.
    Mr. Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. While it is appreciated that there is a need to speed up the process, and especially the heavily indebted poor
    384
    countries initiative, will she also ensure that, in future discussions, the measures are more closely linked to poverty reduction in the countries that receive the benefit? We can thus ensure that all moneys are well spent and attack the real problems of world poverty.
    Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his continued pressure on us to take more account of poverty. The Government are pursuing that at every opportunity. With the World Bank and the IMF, we have made sure that they have formed new joint working partnerships to flesh out the new poverty reduction strategies and to ensure that their focus is alleviating poverty in the affected countries.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will recall the Chancellor proudly proclaiming at the Labour party conference that he would cancel third-world debt. Can she confirm whether that means 100 per cent. guaranteed cancellation or cancellation of only the debt accrued before the Paris Club decided to reschedule the debt of a particular country? If it means the latter, as many of us suspect, will she also confirm that, in some cases, only 40 per cent. of debt—and, for Uganda, only debt accrued up to 1981—would be cancelled?
    Miss Johnson: The Chancellor said on 30 September that the UK is prepared, on a case-by-case basis, to go further than 90 per cent.—and possibly up to 100 per cent., if necessary—when debt relief would finance poverty relief—[Interruption.] For each individual country. The point of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is that we are writing off two thirds of the debt of the poorest countries under the definitions of the HIPC initiative. The Government are committed to that and a great deal of progress is being made in achieving those goals.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Since the Cologne summit, what conditions have been imposed and what monitoring has been done to ensure that those countries that benefit from debt relief are applying more resources to education and health care?
    Miss Johnson: We have, as I said, made sure that there is a focus on poverty and that we address health issues. We expect a number of countries to be able to benefit shortly from the enhanced HIPC 2 programme and hope that Uganda, Mozambique, Bolivia and Mauritania will all be ready to do so soon. On 8 December, Honduras met the IMF board to open discussions on the process. There is much greater focus throughout on the programmes that the hon. Gentleman and I both want in place.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my hon. Friend consider the powers and policy of the IMF adequate to help countries in financial crisis? Will she comment in particular on the recent statement by Mr. Larry Summers, the United States Treasury Secretary, that the IMF should confine itself to short-term loans and leave long-term loans to the private sector?
    Miss Johnson: We have continued to press for greater transparency in matters with which the IMF deals. We support in particular Larry Summers's comments in relation to considering the establishment of a fundamentally new framework for the international

    385
    community's efforts to combat poverty that will give the World Bank the lead and the IMF a more tightly focused role. We also believe, as he does, that, although macro-economic stability is necessary, it may be far from sufficient to create lasting and inclusive growth. There is a commitment to transparency, and we believe that there is no reason why the IMF's operational budget, for example, should not be published regularly. He and the UK Government share views on those moves and are looking to what would be the right future for the IMF.

    Taxation
    Mr. James Clappison: What was the proportion of gross domestic product represented by net taxes and social security contributions on (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest date for which information is available. [101770]
    Mr. Philip Hammond: In which quarters since May 1997 the percentage of GDP taken by the Government in tax over the previous 12 months has risen. [101774]
    Mr. Graham Brady: In which quarters the percentage of gross domestic product taken by the Government in tax over the preceding 12 months has fallen since May 1997. [101776]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Decisions on the public finances are taken on a financial year basis. Financial year figures for the tax-GDP ratio can be found in the pre-Budget report. They show that the tax-GDP ratio is lower this year than last. It will be lower in the two following years than last year. Under the previous Government's plans, those rates would have been higher than the latest projections, in this year and for the next two years.
    Mr. Clappison: As the Minister is unable to provide the figures that were specifically requested in my question, may I put this to him? Will he simply say whether the tax burden is greater or lesser than when the Government came to office?
    Mr. Smith: The pre-Budget report shows—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Gentleman asked for figures. The pre-Budget report shows that the share of GDP going on tax this year is 37 per cent. Last year, it was 37.4 per cent; for next year the projection is 36.8 per cent. That shows a tax burden that is falling, not going up.
    Mr. Hammond: As the right hon. Gentleman seems to be having some difficulty, let us deal with the matter in multiple-choice terms. Does he agree with the Chancellor, who said on Tuesday that the tax burden was increasing, or with the Prime Minister, who said on 24 November—this can be found in column 609 of Hansard—that it was decreasing?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not say that the tax burden was increasing, because it is not increasing. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the figures again. They are 37.4 per cent. for last year, 37 per cent. for this year and 36.8 per cent. for next year. That is a tax burden that is decreasing, not increasing. Moreover, it is
    386
    smaller this year, and will be smaller next year and the year after, than it would have been under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Brady: The Chief Secretary really ought to come clean. The Chancellor made it clear on Tuesday that, since the Government had taken office, the tax burden had become larger than it was in 1997. Does the Chief Secretary agree with that? Will he now make it clear that it is the case?
    Mr. Smith: I will take no lectures on coming clean from Opposition Members who broke the promises that they had made about tax when they were in government. We are keeping each and every promise that we made about tax at the election.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I had a very interesting meeting with some business men last week. They told me—[Interruption.] The Tories would do well to listen. They told me that they wanted the tax burden to increase. [Laughter.] Yes, and they are telling the Tories the same. They say that that would reduce demand, and would take the pressure off interest rates. Is that not an interesting case which business men are now making?
    Mr. Smith: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I cannot assure him—or, through him, the business people to whom he has been talking—that the tax burden is increasing. I have already given the House the figures, which show that the tax burden is decreasing.
    I should have expected those business people to welcome particularly the cuts that we have made in corporation tax, which mean that our rate is the lowest in the industrialised world.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association were extremely critical of the tax burden placed on motorists by the Tory Government, who introduced the fuel duty escalator? Is he aware that those organisations have welcomed the hypothecation of future real-terms revenue increases in fuel duty? Will he ensure that there is a continuing dialogue with organisations such as the RAC, which is very supportive of the Government's choice of priorities for the purpose of spending the extra revenue?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right: the AA, the RAC and other organizations —and motorists in general—were very concerned about the continuation of the fuel duty escalator introduced by the last Government, and have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's decision.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Why is it going up?
    Mr. Smith: I am telling the House about my right hon. Friend's decision to end the escalator introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) said, that decision will be greatly appreciated by motoring organisations, by motorists and, indeed, by the general public, who will—

    387
    as she says—benefit from the hypothecation of revenues over and above inflation for public transport and improvements in our road network.
    Yes, there will be continuing dialogue on these matters.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-term tax reductions that the Government are introducing are based not just on cutting headline income tax and corporation tax, which they are doing, but on the fundamentals of lower interest rates, lower inflation rates and job security? Indeed, an extra 750,000 people are in jobs. A return to the boom and bust of the Jurassic park party opposite would simply inflict an extra 22 Tory taxes on the British people.
    Mr. Smith: Yes indeed. The sensible and sound policies that we are following on fiscal matters complement our decisions to put a sound monetary framework in place and our measures to raise productivity, to equip our country with skills and to ensure that we are more competitive in future. My hon. Friend is right. The contrast could not be clearer than that between the Conservative party, which imposed 22 tax rises and broke its promises to the British people, and the Labour party, which has kept and is keeping each and every tax promise that it made on tax, as on everything else.
    Mr. Francis Maude: It is scarcely credible that, even after the Chancellor admitted on Tuesday that the tax burden has risen since Labour came into office, the Chief Secretary is still arguing the toss. I remind him that the Government's own figures show that the tax burden was at 35.6 per cent. when they took office. It has gone up in every single quarter since then and is 37.7 per cent. now. Where does that leave the Prime Minister's pre-election promise that Labour had
    "no plans to increase taxes at all"?
    Does he agree with the Prime Minister's official spokesman, who is quoted in today's press as saying that getting at the truth on the tax burden is just a "game"?
    Mr. Smith: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has missed again. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not say that the tax burden was rising; he said that it was falling. He said that because it is.
    The right hon. Gentleman refers to promises made before the general election. I will tell him and the House what we promised. We promised not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax throughout the next Parliament and we have not. We said that our objective was a lower starting rate of income tax of 10p in the pound, a promise kept; we have delivered it.
    We said that we would cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. when Conservative Members wanted to make it higher. We kept that promise and cut VAT on fuel. We said that we would not extend VAT to fuel, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport. We have not and we will not. We said that the welfare to work programme would be funded by a windfall levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities. It was much derided and opposed by Conservative Members, but that is the policy that has delivered the new deal and cut youth unemployment by more than 60 per cent. and long-term
    388
    unemployment by 50 per cent. The contrast could not be clearer between the party that keeps its promises on tax and the party that broke its promises.
    Mr. Maude: The Chief Secretary still does not get it. The Prime Minister said before the election:
    "We have no plans to increase taxes at all."
    Was that a promise? What does the Chief Secretary understand that to have meant? The fact is that Labour got elected by promising not to increase taxes at all. Once elected, almost the first thing it did was to raise taxes massively by stealth. In every quarter since the election, the tax burden has increased. Ministers do not just deny it; they claim the opposite—that taxes are falling. Now that the Chancellor has finally admitted that the tax burden is remorselessly rising, what does he say? He says that Labour did not make that promise in the first place. When will we eventually see the end to the great Labour lie on tax?
    Mr. Smith: I can only repeat: the Chancellor did not say that the tax burden is increasing because it is not. It is going down. I can give the figures again: 37.4 per cent. last year, 37 per cent. this year, 36.8 per cent. next year. More importantly for families and the taxes that they are paying, as a consequence of our tax changes, the average household is £380 a year better off and families with children are £740 a year better off—benefits which the Conservative party would clearly take away from them.
    Mr. Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members have no lessons to learn from Conservative Members when it comes to setting tax levels? We keep our promises—on introducing the working families tax credit, lowering the starting tax rate by 1 p, and introducing the 10p tax rate—whereas, in office, Conservative Members broke their promises, raising tax not once, not twice, but 22 times.
    Mr. Smith: Yes. The electorate will no more forget those 22 Tory tax rises than they will the boom and bust that went with them and that inflicted such incalculable damage on our economy.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Prime Minister yesterday admitted that, to overcome the Conservative deficit that the Government had inherited, tax had been increased in the their first two years in office, and promised that taxes would start to decrease. Does the Minister feel entirely comfortable with cutting 1p off income tax next year, even though the Secretary of State for Health has had to abandon waiting list targets, and out-patient waiting lists have not only doubled but, on current spending plans, are set to increase further?
    Mr. Smith: Very comfortable—because it is absolutely in line with the promises that we made at the general election and not least because we are investing £21 billion extra in health.
    Mr. David Chaytor: Does not the obsession with the overall tax take conceal the very

    389
    important matter of tax distribution? Is it not indisputable that, since 1997, hundreds of thousands of low-income families have been taken out of the tax bracket entirely?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. Furthermore, 1.4 million households are benefiting, by an average £24 a week, from the working families tax credit—which is a real advantage and a tax cut that Conservative Members would remove from them.

    Land Settlement Tenants (Compensation)
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What plans he has to meet the chairman of the Inland Revenue and hon. Members to discuss tax issues relating to compensation given to former land settlement tenants. [101771]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): There are no plans for such a meeting. Representations have been made querying the raising of tax charges by the Inland Revenue in respect of an out-of-court compensation paid by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the early 1990s, to a number of former tenants of the Land Settlement Association, but it has been made clear that Ministers do not intervene in individual cases. The Inland Revenue's independence from Treasury Ministers in handling individuals' tax affairs must be scrupulously observed. When disputes continue between taxpayers and the Revenue, it is for the appeal commissioners and the courts to determine how the law is to be applied.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply. At some stage, however, Ministers have been involved in the matter. Although the Minister quite rightly said that the award was made by MAFF in the early 1990s, the then Minister said in a letter to the chairman of the Inland Revenue that
    "it was quite clearly Ministers' intention at the time of the settlement that the out-of-court payments were intended to compensate the ex-tenants of the LSA for personal hardship … it was not therefore intended as taxable compensation for loss of earnings".
    I really do think that the Minister should get involved in resolving what is clearly a gross inequity.
    Dawn Primarolo: The rules applying to the Land Settlement Association are the same as those applying to all other taxpayers; an exception would be possible only if a specific amendment were in a Finance Bill or if an extra-statutory concession were publicly announced. Such an exception may be authorised only by a Treasury Minister, and Treasury Ministers in the previous Government made no such authorisation. Ministers in the previous Government did not put in place the rules that the hon. Gentleman claims that they should have. Consequently, normal taxpayer rules apply.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The House will be aware—as I am sure that you are in the west midlands, Madam Speaker—that many land settlement tenants have retired or are farmers. The Government have hardly been helpful to those two categories of people—indeed, one might argue that those people have been victimised. By refusing to support the intent of the previous Government, are not the current Government imposing yet another stealth tax on two
    390
    categories of people whom they have already hit hard? Secondly, will the Minister not admit, as the Chancellor has already admitted, that the overall burden of taxation has gone up from 35.3 per cent. of gross national product in the tax year 1996–97 to more than 37 per cent. this year, and that that is a marked rise in taxation?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand how the tax system works. It was not the intent of the previous Government to make such an arrangement. Had it been their intent, they would either have tabled a specific amendment to a Finance Bill—they did not; the issue was settled in the early 1990s—or put in place an extra-statutory concession to give influence to that compensation. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to breach the principle and require Ministers to get involved in individual taxpayers' affairs. Relations in the tax system are clear. An appeal must go to the appeal commissioners and then to the courts. That is the position over which the previous Government presided and it would be foolish to require Ministers to intervene inindividual matters now. Some individuals have settled. Others continue to argue hardship. The proper way forward is for them to appeal to the appeal commissioners and then, if they are not satisfied, to the courts.
    Mr. Phil Woolas: In the light of the questions that she has been asked today, which does my hon. Friend think is falling faster—the tax burden or the reputation of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was rather a wasted question.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Minister reconsider what she has just said about the former tenants of the Land Settlement Association? We are talking about people who endured pain, suffering and hardship for years. Compensation for that is not taxable. Will she recognise that such poor people have no money to go to the special commissioners or through the Court of Appeal? Before they are driven down that route, there should be a meeting with the head of the Inland Revenue. The Minister should kindly read the question that she is answering, which refers not just to Ministers, but to the head of the Inland Revenue. Such a meeting would enable Members on both sides of the House who represent those poor people to help them find a fair way through their harsh and unfair situation and solve the problem before they are driven to court, adding to the burdens of those whose suffering we should be sympathising with rather than increasing.
    Dawn Primarolo: I am surprised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's heavy criticism of the actions of his colleagues when they were in power, because they decided not to make specific arrangements. As he knows, compensation for personal hardship is not liable to income tax. Compensation for loss of trading profits is taxable as a trading income. That was established when the compensation was paid by the previous Government, whose Treasury Ministers failed to make any legal provision of the type for which they are now arguing, to change the calculation of tax on compensation. They now

    391
    ask for a Treasury Minister to intervene in individual tax affairs. That should not and cannot happen. The appeal system is clear in legislation.

    Exchange Rate
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What his definition is of a competitive sterling exchange rate; and if the United Kingdom currently meets that definition. [101775]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The Government do not have a target exchange rate for sterling. By pursuing policies for sound public finances, sustained growth and low inflation, the Government are creating the environment for achieving and maintaining a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term.
    Dr. Cable: How do the Government reconcile their commitment to a stable and competitive exchange rate with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data which came to the House of Commons Library yesterday, which show that the price competitiveness of British industry, and exporters generally, has declined by 6 per cent. this year; 12 per cent. since the Government came to office; and 30 per cent. since the beginning of 1996? Is the objective simply not attainable, and would it not be more honest for the Government to acknowledge that they are not even proceeding in the right direction?
    Mr. Timms: We have achieved a remarkable new stability in the economy since the election. The imperative now is to lock that in for the long term, and to build on it to deliver full employment for Britain in the new millennium. I recognise that there are real concerns, particularly for manufacturers selling their goods in Europe, but short-term fixes are not the answer. The pick-up in world growth is improving UK export performance. The latest three-month on three-month data show that goods export volumes, excluding oil and erratics, are up strongly by 8 per cent. to September. Services exports remain close to record high levels, and manufacturing output is up. In reality, the news on exports is encouraging.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: The totally unexpected fall in the value of the euro in the past year has driven the pound up to record levels. The European Union, as a trading bloc, has a massive balance of payments surplus, inflation is barely 1 per cent. and unemployment is at 10 per cent. What pressure are the Government putting on our European partners to expand their economies so that the euro recovers and the pound can then fall in value?
    Mr. Timms: That is a matter for them, but I entirely recognise that there are firms —particularly those selling goods in Europe—which are facing real difficulties. However, there is no quick fix here. The consensus among independent forecasters is that exports of goods and
    392
    services will grow by 4 per cent. next year. Exporters are performing well, and CBI data on export orders show clear improvements on a year ago.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Does the Minister accept the vital role that has been played by variable exchange rates in recent economic history? Does he recognise that most of the successful economies of the past few decades have succeeded because of the fact that they were benefiting from their currencies' variable exchange rate? Does he further accept that a variable exchange rate is a vital mechanism to recognise changing relationships between trading economies, and that, were that variable relationship not to be available, other things would have to vary domestically—not least inflation and unemployment?
    Mr. Timms: Medium and long-term exchange rate stability is desirable, and requires the approach that we are taking—sound macro—economic policies for sustained growth and low inflation. We will not repeat the mistakes of the past with short-term fixes, which would take us back to Tory boom and bust. We are taking the right decisions for the long term to build for a future of full employment.
    Mr. John Swinney: Apart from telling them that there are no short-term fixes, does the Minister have any other advice for exporters who are wrestling with a competitive disadvantage of 20 or 30 per cent. in relation to previous years? Is it not the case that the improvement in manufactured exports has come about only because it is an improvement on pretty awful figures—figures which declined because of the impact of sterling over the past two to three years?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right—things are improving. However, I repeat that I recognise the difficulties that some exporters are facing. The Government attach great importance to the promotion of exports. That is why we established British Trade International in May, giving Britain a sharper edge in export markets. We want to work with exporters to maximise their success in overseas export markets.

    Alcohol Smuggling
    Mr. Eric Illsley: What proposals he has to combat the smuggling of alcohol into the United Kingdom. [101777]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The comprehensive spending review allocated customs an additional £35 million to tackle evasion of excise duties, enabling it to deploy 145 additional staff. Currently, another 55 officers have been redeployed to the south-east to tackle the seasonal peak in excise smuggling.
    There has been a steady increase in the number of staff deployed on this work. At the beginning of this financial year, Customs had about 1,000 staff employed in combating excise smuggling. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget

    393
    statement additional funding for customs to deploy a national network of X-ray scanners designed to detect smuggling in freight.
    Mr. Illsley: I welcome that reply, but is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency and the whole of the north of England, smuggling and illegal sales of alcohol are on the increase and are destabilising many legitimate traders? Will she consider the reintroduction of the wholesale liquor licence, which I understand was done away with in the early 1980s, to help to prevent illegal traders from selling contraband booze? Will she also reconsider the rates of duty on alcohol, and especially beer, and try to bring them more in line with those on the continent?
    Dawn Primarolo: Customs has deployed 130 extra officers inland, away from the frontiers, to disrupt the illegal distribution networks. The Government have also increased the penalties for those caught dealing in these illegal goods. We have an agreement with Camelot, for example, that a trader who is convicted of trading in illegal goods would lose the licence to sell lottery tickets. In the pre-Budget report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that we are considering the use of tax stamps to identify legitimate products, so that those who trade in products not bearing the stamp can be prosecuted.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am delighted to hear of the new measures and the extra manpower that Customs and Excise has been able to deploy. That is good news. Does the Paymaster General agree, however, that the news is still very bad and that an enormous amount of illegal goods is getting through? Will she assure the House that Customs and Excise will prosecute whenever it has evidence, to ensure that people understand that the illegal trading is not just a fly job but a serious matter that is deeply destabilising to many firms in the south-east, which are under great pressure as a result of this wholly illegal activity?
    Dawn Primarolo: Yes, I am happy to confirm that Customs and Excise will prosecute when we catch people dealing in these illegal goods. There are considerably more staff available for tackling the problem than there would have been under a Conservative Government: on election in 1997, we found that the Conservative Government had planned in their fundamental expenditure review to reduce by 300 the anti-smuggling staff. We kept those officers in place and have deployed them to do exactly the work that the hon. Gentleman implores us to do. He is quite right: the illegal selling undermines the legitimate trade and undermines our communities because of the criminal activity. We will continue to deal with the problem and to prosecute the offenders.

    Growth Forecasting
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment he has made of his Department's accuracy in forecasting United Kingdom growth since 1997. [101778]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): Recent forecasts have been very accurate compared with those in the past. We have been helped by the National Audit Office audit of key assumptions, and the Government are ensuring that fiscal plans are set on a sound and prudent basis.
    Mr. Kidney: Does my hon. Friend recall how many forecasters, including the Opposition, scoffed at the Treasury's forecast in this year's Budget of growth of 1 to 1.5 per cent? They said that the forecast was unrealistically high, but it has now been completely vindicated. How does my hon. Friend explain the Treasury's forecasting success when so many people have egg on their faces?
    Miss Johnson: As my hon. Friend says, the Treasury's success is rightly to be contrasted with that of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the time that we made those forecasts:
    "Until he wakes up to the worrying economic prospects facing Britain, he will never be able to get to grips with the situation."
    A couple of days later, the right hon. Gentleman said in his press release:
    "The economy is heading for a far sharper slowdown than the Government is complacently predicting."
    Is it any wonder, given that the Treasury got it right and the Opposition—as usual—got it wrong, that no one believes a word that the right hon. Member for Horsham says?
    Mr. Edward Davey: In the economic forecasts for United Kingdom growth, is not the Treasury now deliberately underestimating growth in years two and three in the pre-Budget report to massage the public finances and to hide a huge Budget surplus in future years? Are not the Government amassing a huge election war chest? Will the Minister tell the Chancellor when he returns from the G20 that there is no point in being an iron Chancellor if he leaves our public services to rust?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have shown the prudence that the previous Government should have shown when they looked at a brief moment and decided to make economic decisions that led us into boom and bust in the 1980s. They should have looked to the longer term, and that is what this Government are doing. We have made prudent assumptions and we are sticking to them. I will take no lectures from the Liberal Democrats on forecasting because they have spent 1p so many times that most of us have lost count.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: How can the Government possibly hope to forecast anything accurately when they are in denial about what is happening now? We heard from the Chief Secretary earlier more of this eyewash about the tax burden falling, but the figures—I have them here from the Library—show that, in every single quarter from 1997 to the second quarter of 1999, which is the last quarter for which figures are available, the tax burden has increased. Let me throw

    395
    the figures to him now across the Dispatch Box so that he will not be able to continue to deny the facts. Can we please have an answer to the question?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has, as usual, got it completely wrong. The figures are as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for passing the figures across the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] I do not need to pass across the key figures that Opposition need to reflect on, because they are their predicted tax rises for 19992002. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order, Mr. Paterson.
    Miss Johnson: The Conservatives' figures for all three years show that there would have been a higher tax burden under a Conservative Government than there will be under Labour. As with everything else, the country is better off with a Labour Government.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress on implementation of the national changeover plan. [101779]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): Progress on the national changeover planning project was reported in the Treasury's third report on euro preparations on 1 November. Copies of the report are available in the Library.
    Mr. Chapman: Is not the implementation of the national changeover plan the only sensible way to proceed? What individual or organisation—in the private or public sector—would proceed with the prospect of a decision when the conditions are satisfied without making adequate preparations? Does my hon. Friend not agree that the position of the Conservative party is entirely incomprehensible in that respect? Will she also tell me when the second implementation plan might be published?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making exactly the right points on this matter. We need to take a lead in making preparations so that we are able to decide one way or another. We have consulted more than 100 organisations. The public sector has taken a lead in the preparations and, this month, the Bank of England issued a document on its work in this regard. We also now have the opportunity in our preparations to consider the experience of first-wave countries.

ECHR Judgment (Thompson and Venables)
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Departmente (Mr. Jack Straw): I should like to make a statement about the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which announced its judgment this morning. in the case brought against the United Kingdom Government by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. A copy of the judgment has been placed in the Library.
Those two youths were responsible for the appalling murder of James Bulger in Liverpool in February 1993. The whole House and the country have the deepest sympathy for James's parents. As Lord Reed, one of the court's judges, said in this judgment:
"the grief of James Bulgers' parents, who took part in the proceedings before the Court, is inexpressible."
He added that the fact that those responsible
"were themselves only ten years old at the time of the murder makes it particularly disturbing".
The authority of the European Court of Human Rights derives from our membership of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was established after the war on the initiative of the allies, especially the United Kingdom. It now has 41 nations in membership. The Council predates the European Union, and is wholly separate from it.
The European convention on human rights is a convention of the Council of Europe and the Court of Human Rights, which sits in Strasbourg, is one of its principal institutions. British jurists played a leading role in drafting the convention and the UK was the first nation to ratify it in 1951. Successive UK Governments have, ever since and consistently, abided by the decisions of the court, introducing amending legislation in this Parliament where necessary.
In the case that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables brought before the Strasbourg court, the two youths essentially argued that facing trial in a Crown court and having their tariff set by the Home Secretary were inappropriate given their ages. They claimed that those arrangements breached articles 3, 5, 6 and 14 of the convention relating to powers of detention and the right to a fair trial. The youths were 11 at the time of conviction and they are now aged 17.
The House will understand that I have had only a short time to read the judgment, which was not issued to the public or to Ministers until early this morning. However, the key findings are as follows.
First, there were no violations of the European convention on human rights in respect of article 3 and, in one regard, in respect of article 5(1). Article 3 is on the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and it relates to matters of both trial and of sentence. In particular, the court held as lawful the age of 10 as the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. It was also of the view that the particular features of the trial process did not cause,
"to a significant degree, suffering going beyond that which would inevitably have been engendered by any attempt by the authorities to deal with the applicant".
The court also held that there had been no violation in respect of article 5(1), the right to liberty. It held that the sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure was
398
clearly lawful under English law and was not arbitrary. However, the court did find violations in respect of article 6(1), the right to a fair trial, and, under articles 6(1) and 5(4), relating to the setting of the tariffs and their continued review.
On article 6(1), the right to a fair trial, the court found that, notwithstanding the special arrangements made to help ensure that the youths could properly participate in the trial process in the Crown Court,
"it was highly unlikely that either applicant would have felt sufficiently uninhibited, in the tense court room and under public scrutiny, to have consulted with their legal representatives during the trial or, indeed, that, given their immaturity and disturbed emotional state, they would have been capable outside the court room of co-operating with their lawyers and giving them information for the purpose of their defence".
It therefore followed, in the view of the court, that the applicants had been denied a fair hearing in breach of article 6(1).
On the setting of tariffs and their continued review, the court first held that there was a fundamental distinction between the sentence for murder in respect of juveniles and that for murder in respect of adults. As far as the latter—the sentence for adults—was concerned, the European Court, in an earlier judgment on the 1994 Wynne case, had accepted the lawfulness of the mandatory life sentence for adults convicted of murder. It had also accepted as lawful the arrangements for tariff-setting by the Secretary of State.
Today's judgment does not deal with the arrangements for adults who have been, or will be, convicted of murder in the courts in England and Wales. However, in this case, which involves juveniles, the European Court followed a decision by the House of Lords' Appellate Committee of the Privy Council that the setting of the tariffs for juveniles was itself a sentencing exercise. The court added that, as the Home Secretary—who set the applicants' tariffs—was clearly not independent of the Executive, there had been a breach of article 6(1) in respect of the determination of the applicants' tariffs.
On article 5(4), the court held that, because the applicants' tariffs had been decided by the Home Secretary, there had been no judicial supervision incorporated in the initial fixing of their sentences. The court therefore found a violation of article 5(4) based on the lack of any opportunity for the applicants to have the lawfulness of their detention assessed by a judicial body.
In summary, therefore, the court has found in favour of the United Kingdom Government on two important issues—that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were never subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment by the Government, and that the sentences imposed by the court were not inconsistent with the requirements of the convention. However, it has found against the United Kingdom on issues relating to the trial process, to the way in which the tariff linked to their sentence was set, and to the failure subsequently to review the tariff.
The judgment does not overturn the verdict of murder in this case, nor does it in any way exonerate the two youths for their part in this terrible crime. The judgment does not direct their release from custody. The parole board remains responsible for deciding release in these cases.
As with any such decision of the court, the Government accept its judgment. However, the full judgment runs to 120 pages, and the House will understand that I need to

399
study carefully the detail of what the court has said, and fully to consider the implications. I will of course report the outcome of my considerations to Parliament as soon as possible, and it will be for Parliament to agree any change that may appear to be required in the legislative framework for dealing with juvenile offenders in these circumstances.
The appalling murder of James Bulger—a two-year-old murdered by two 10-year-olds—profoundly shocked this country and continues to do so, but the real agony is felt by James's parents. It is they who have endured, and will continue to endure, the profound grief of losing their son—a fact which nothing can ever repair.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and for his courtesy in giving me an early sight of it. Of course I accept that he is studying the judgment. Indeed, I would have been the first to criticise had he come to this House with ready-made decisions without studying it in more depth. Nevertheless, I will ask him to indicate his thinking on one or two matters that have been the subject of much public discussion.
Does the Home Secretary agree that a tariff must reflect what is appropriate to the crime itself, rather than take into account the various stages at which the nature of imprisonment changes? He will be aware that there has been considerable discussion about whether it is right for Thompson and Venables to enter the adult system. Does he agree that that is not germane to setting a tariff, but that a tariff must reflect the gravity and nature of the crime, rather than any consideration about the nature of the imprisonment involved?
Does the Home Secretary agree, from his knowledge of tariffs, that, had these two been adults, the tariff would probably have been in the region of 25 years and that, therefore, an appropriate and, indeed, sizeable discount was given to reflect their youth? Does he agree also that that tariff is roughly comparable to that involved in the only other roughly comparable crime committed by a child of similar age, and that the tariff of 15 years is not vastly in excess of the time served by Mary Bell, who also transferred to the adult system during the course of her imprisonment?
Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is the case that, in July 1996, our Court of Appeal upheld the Home Secretary's right to adopt the same policy for setting tariffs for young offenders as for adults, and that decision gave legitimacy to the practice? Furthermore, does he recognise that the power to increase tariffs has been used hundreds of times without challenge?
Naturally, I accept that the Home Secretary is studying the judgment. Is he in any position to indicate, even in a preliminary fashion, what options might be available? For example, does he feel absolutely compelled to change the nature of the Home Secretary's role? He has observed—the House will be grateful for this—that the judgment does not affect the verdict. Does he agree, and can he say whether, even had the trial been conducted under the juvenile rather than the adult system, it is most unlikely that anything would have happened other than that Thompson and Venables would still have been convicted and sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure?
Does the Home Secretary agree that it is in the interests not only of James Bulger's parents and the surviving relatives but of Thompson and Venables themselves that
400
they settle down to complete their sentence without the regular glare of publicity that this case involves, and that being encouraged to look upon themselves as victims of the system rather than perpetrators of a serious crime will not help them come to terms with what they have done and to lead law-abiding lives thereafter?
Conservative Members join absolutely with the Home Secretary in renewing our sympathy for James Bulger's parents and other members of his family and expressing the horror which we all felt at that crime, at the vulnerability of the victim, and at the shockingly young age of the perpetrators. I thank him again for his statement and should be grateful for as much elucidation as he can give on the points that I have raised.
Mr. Straw: In turn, I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the way in which she put those questions. She asked a number of specific questions about the setting, or resetting, of tariffs in these cases. I crave the indulgence of the right hon. Lady and the House if I do not go down that road. These matters require the most careful consideration; I do not believe that it would be appropriate to offer views on them, given that, like everyone else, I have only had the judgment for about three hours.
It is important for the House and the country to understand that setting a tariff sets the minimum sentence which someone convicted of these grave crimes can serve for retribution and deterrence. It is only at the end of the serving of a tariff that the issue of release arises. Then, an assessment of risk is made as to whether it is safe to release the individual, whether it is an adult convicted of murder or someone who is serving a sentence at Her Majesty's pleasure—typically, a juvenile. The assessment of, and final decision on, adult murderers is made by the Home Secretary of the day, but the decision about those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure is, as a result of a separate decision of the European Court of Human Rights, made by the parole board. However, many people convicted of murder—both adults and juveniles—serve a sentence significantly beyond their tariff because the Home Secretary of the day or the parole board judge that it is not safe to release them any earlier.
I have read the judgment as carefully as possible, as I previously read the preliminary decision of the European Commission of Human Rights. It is important to appreciate that the issue is not the guilt or innocence of the two youths—it relates instead to the circumstances in which the trial had taken place, the setting of tariffs and the allegation that there had been insufficient judicial supervision of the sentence post-tariff but before its expiry.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: This was a terrible crime, and our sympathies go to the family of James Bulger, particularly his parents. Can my right hon. Friend clear up some of my confusion? If the European Court has accepted that a fair trial was denied, under article 6(1), how does the verdict stand? The trial was either fair or it was not. Can my right hon. Friend explain that contradiction, now or later?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that the matter is not as simple as that. Our domestic courts may decide that an error had been made in the process of a trial but that it was not such as to require a guilty verdict to be overturned. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) to look in detail at the judgment.

401
As I have already made clear, the European Court of Human Rights found in favour of the United Kingdom Government in two respects. One was with regard to a claim by the applicants that aspects of the trial process relating to the age of criminal responsibility breached their rights under article 3 not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. The Court also found in favour of the United Kingdom in respect of the applicants' rights to liberty under article 5. It was in respect of aspects of article 6(1), on the right to a fair trial, and article 5, on the detention of anyone in Council of Europe countries, that the court held that there had been a violation. The court did not say, therefore, in the sense in which it is understood in common parlance in the UK, that the trial at Preston Crown court was defective and that the verdict should be overturned. That was never at issue.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his prompt, accurate, considered and welcome statement. I join him and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in saying to the family of James Bulger that the House and the country remain supportive and sympathetic. We share their belief that, when young people commit terrible crimes, they should be properly punished.
It is an instructive point of the decision that the family of the victim were represented before the hearing in the European court. Will the Home Secretary consider how we can better ensure that victims who survive or the families of victims who do not can be represented in the processes that precede decision and sentence? One of the great complaints about our system is that great attention is given to hearing the defendants, while little is given to hearing the views of those who have been victims or who have suffered bereavement, as in this terrible case.
I should make just three further points. Does the Home Secretary agree that the case does not for one moment suggest that, simply because we require fair trials for children—even if differently fair from those for adults—we should not have appropriate and severe sentences for children, just as we should for adults who offend?
Like me, the Home Secretary has had only a short while to consider the judgment, but will he reflect on the key element of the decision that we should move away from political decisions on sentencing to judicial decisions? We must all welcome that. Means exist for dealing with lenient or excessive sentences, but they should be judicial means, free of political interference. That does not necessarily mean less severe or shorter sentences, but it must mean sentences beyond a political context that might be affected by the pressure of the moment.
The Home Secretary should feel vindicated by what the case makes clear about his decision, which we strongly supported, to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law in the Human Rights Act 1998—due to take effect next year. That decision will mean that, from next year, decisions taken in the UK will not be pronounced on from over there in Europe. Our courts will be able to take decisions on the basis of British and European human rights law. That will produce more
402
immediate verdicts, and verdicts more likely to be right first time, rather than prolonging the terrible trauma of those who suffer from court cases such as the Bulger case.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the manner of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. It was extremely important to the family that they were represented at Strasbourg. I entirely accept that we must do a great deal more to ensure that the victims or, in the case of murder, their families, are able to play a more dignified role in our court process. Previous Governments considered that, and we are thinking further about it. Already, there have been developments in victims' statements. I meet many relatives of victims of murder. Anyone who has met such people knows how harrowing that experience is. One of their main complaints is that they feel as if they are spectators—at best—in the court process. They do not ask to take over prosecution, recognising that that is a proper role for the state. However, we must examine our procedures and the experiences of some other countries to see whether families could play a better and more dignified role.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that, under the current system, setting tariffs and determining release are political decisions. I do not think that that is the appropriate adjective to attach to our system. I do not want to speak about the arrangements for tariff-setting in respect of juveniles, as that is a matter which I have to consider in the light of the judgment of the European Court in Strasbourg, but the arrangements for setting the tariff and for release in respect of adults have been taken seriously by successive Home Secretaries, who have sought to exercise their judgment in a quasi-judicial way.
I can speak only personally, but I believe that I speak on behalf of others who have held this office. In every case where we are faced with such difficult decisions, we must consider the matter in a quasi-judicial way, first because that is right, and secondly because such decisions are, rightly, the subject of intense scrutiny and supervision by the courts through the process of judicial review. Moreover, the reasons that led us to make those decisions are the subject of full disclosure.
The hon. Gentleman's final point related to the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our domestic law, which will come into force on 2 October next year. I believe that that should help the United Kingdom to ensure that that convention and the jurisprudence of the court impacts on our institutions in a way that is more attuned to our law. That was one of the reasons why the noble Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, commended the incorporation of the convention, which has become part of the Human Rights Act 1998. Although that may reduce the number of times that the UK Government are taken to the Strasbourg court, it will not eliminate that process. There will still be occasions when applicants seek to overturn judgments made by our courts or by Parliament.
Mr. Frank Doran: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and align myself with the comments that he and other hon. Members have made expressing sympathy and continuing support for the Bulger family.
Inevitably, we will concentrate on that case and the criminal law aspects involved. Before I entered the House, I practised as a Scottish solicitor, and my specialism was

403
child care law. When I was learning my trade 25 or so years ago, I quickly learned how poorly we deal with children in all aspects of our legal system.
I am not asking for a decision today but, when my right hon. Friend, together with other relevant Ministers, considers the full implications of this case, will he see it as an opportunity for us to undertake a proper examination of the rights of children in our society, and in particular of the way in which the legal processes deal with children?
Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, may I decline his invitation? It is extremely important that I carefully look at the judgment and consider its implications. I am aware that some people are concerned about the way in which our courts deal with such cases. I must tell my hon. Friend, however, that dealing with children who have committed, or who are alleged to have committed, grave crimes is difficult in any jurisdiction.
There is sometimes criticism of our system for its adversarial nature and the fact that it is more public than some people would wish, yet, when I speak to my colleagues who are European Ministers of Justice and the Interior, their concerns often come from the other direction. Their systems are sometimes seen to lack public confidence because they are perceived as wholly private.
On the general issue of juvenile delinquency, it is interesting that the French Government—in the light of recent events, the House will excuse me if I mention that country—are studying with great care our system for dealing with young offenders because of considerable public concern in France that their more welfare-based system is seen to be ineffective in dealing with young criminals and in maintaining public confidence.
Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving me early sight of his statement.
I once again associate myself with those who have offered sympathy to the parents of James Bulger. I also particularly associate myself with the remarks made by the Home Secretary in answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) about the painstaking and conscientious nature of the tariff-setting process.
Does the Home Secretary agree that, if anyone had told those who signed the European convention on human rights in the immediate aftermath of the unspeakable horrors of the second world war that it would be applied to a case such as this, they would have reacted with utter disbelief?
Does the Home Secretary also agree that, if the judges at Strasbourg cannot resist the itch to intervene in such cases, their legitimacy will increasingly be called into question? Will the Home Secretary resume the efforts made by the previous Government to increase the margin of appreciation—that is, the extent to which member states of the Council of Europe are allowed to decide cases such as this in accordance with their own democratically accountable procedures and without outside interference?
Mr. Straw: I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is inappropriate in the current context for him to make what are partisan remarks even within his own party about our signature and application of the
404
European convention on human rights. I cannot say what was in the mind of David Maxwell Fyfe, later a Conservative Lord Chancellor, who was one of the British jurists who played such a leading role in drafting the European convention on human rights, but what was certainly in the minds of those who drafted it was that it would set out a body of European law and jurisprudence, to which member states would voluntarily agree to comply.
I have to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, during the whole period that the Conservative party has been in power, not just in the previous 18 years, but in the many years before that, he and his colleagues in his party fully accepted Britain's membership of the Council of Europe and, therefore, the obligations which went with it. In the other place on 3 November 1997, the noble Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, said:
"on behalf of my party, I make no apologies for what is contained in that convention; we support its terms wholeheartedly."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1235.]
I would also point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, during the period that he was Home Secretary, he brought proposals to the House, which were accepted, to amend our domestic law so as to make it comply with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as he did in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, following the case of Singh and Hussain, which led to the decision about the final release of those who are being detained at Her Majesty's pleasure being taken away from the Home Secretary and transferred to the parole board.
It is not just a fact of life but a central tenet of the rule of law that we are subject to the rule of law—in Britain that includes the law laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to which we have voluntarily agreed to comply. An aspect of the rule of law is that those who hold political office sometimes find that decisions may be made by judges which we may or may not happily have made ourselves, but that is an important part of the separation of powers on which our democracy is founded.
Jean Corston: I thank my right hon. Friend for his prompt statement. He is right to say that the tragedy will affect members of the Bulger family for as long they live. It traumatised a generation of parents, as any sensitive person who went shopping in the wake of the case and watched parents with their children knows. They were traumatised in the same way as my generation in the wake of the Moors murders.
As I understand it, the European Court had no difficulty with 10 as the age of criminal responsibility. That must be correct: children of 10 know the difference between right and wrong. However, the difficulty was that the mode of trial offered in the juvenile courts was not appropriate to the case, and it was therefore transferred to the Crown Court. During his deliberations, will my right hon. Friend consider the operation of the juvenile court, and make it possible to give due process to children who commit what are, hopefully, rare crimes?
Mr. Straw: I entirely associate myself with my hon. Friend's comments about the way in which this terrible case—not least, the image of that two-year-old child being led away to his death—traumatised a generation of parents more than any other event in the decade. It has

405
had serious consequences; children are under much greater supervision and are not allowed the freedom that our generation enjoyed to explore the areas in which we lived. All of us who are parents know the anxiety that single events—thankfully, rare events—cause parents.
The European Court was right to accept that our age of criminal responsibility is lawful. As it pointed out, the age of 10 is higher than in some other member countries, including—I add this to the judgment, which omitted it—Scotland, where the age of criminal responsibility is eight, not 10.
The court made two decisions in respect of articles 3 and 6. One was in the United Kingdom Government's favour, and the other went in the applicants' favour. They must be studied with considerable care, but they have implications for the venue and form of trial. While the juvenile courts are able to deal with less serious matters—their sentencing power is about to be increased under the Detention and Training Order so that they can give sentences of two years—we would have to think long and hard about whether that venue would be appropriate for trying grave crimes. Frankly, I doubt it. We shall have to consider alternative systems for such trials.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Those of us who practise in the criminal court—and, indeed, society as a whole—have great difficulty with the judgment. I have recently completed a trial of a murder case in which I acted for a defendant of 16. Neither the forum nor the procedures prevented me from properly representing that young man. I ask the Home Secretary to remind everyone that the two persons whom we are discussing are undoubtedly guilty of murder. Has there been a recommendation for compensation? If so, how much? How does it equate with any payments that may have been made to the parents of the young boy who was killed?
I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and ask the Home Secretary whether the language of the convention is being strained in this case. Should he not seek ways of impressing on the court that it should be wary of disturbing the practices and institutions of courts that have been established in democratic states by democratic bodies? If it goes on doing that, it will fundamentally undermine our respect for the convention and the court.
Mr. Straw: On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first observation, I of course accept his wide experience, as someone who practises at the criminal Bar. There are significant differences between a trial in which a 16-year-old is the defendant—[Interruption.] No, we must consider this serious point as we take account of the judgment. There is a huge difference between 10-year-olds and 15 or 16-year-olds, some of whom pass for adults and are only a year from the age at which they are treated as adults for certain purposes of the criminal law under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Indeed, only a few years ago, they were treated as adults for all purposes. This case has been made particularly difficult at all stages because the defendants were 10 when they committed the crime and 11 when they were convicted of it. I must also place it on record, as the court did, that the trial judge and everyone else made huge
406
efforts to ensure that, within the framework of our criminal law and process, the two defendants were able properly to understand what was going on and not gratuitously intimidated by the process.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to say whether the two youths were undoubtedly guilty of those crimes. As he knows, that was the conviction of the court. I understand that there was no appeal against that conviction at the time to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, and it is not affected by this morning's judgment. There was no recommendation for compensation because no compensation was claimed by the applicants or their representatives. The other point that he made should be the subject of wider discussion at another time and I refer him to my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I would add, however, that I believe that, had we incorporated the European convention into our domestic law some decades ago—that was resisted by parties on both sides of the House for quite a period—we would have achieved in practice greater benefit than we have from the margin of appreciation.
Mr. Eric Forth: I echo the sentiments expressed by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Does the Home Secretary accept that, from time to time in a mature democracy and a mature judicial system, we have the right to review what has been, and that what may have been appropriate 50 years ago may no longer be appropriate? Surely this case and others could show that it may be time to review altogether our relationship with the convention and the court. It may now be inappropriate for a body sitting in another country and far from here, and with perhaps a completely different outlook on life, to intervene—albeit with our voluntary consent up to now—in the proper, mature and accountable dealings of our judicial system, supported by our democracy.
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to think about whether we should remain members of the Council of Europe, that is a matter for him. We cannot cherry-pick our international obligations. We are members of the Council of Europe, which, in my judgment, has been a huge force for human good and has reduced the risk of world war. There were two such wars in a generation in Europe and millions of people were killed. Applicant countries that have emerged from Soviet control are having to bring their judicial systems up to the standards set by the Council of Europe as a result of international obligations imposed on them. It is because of the international rule of law, from which this country benefits, that other Council of Europe members have also had to accept the decisions of the court—and they do accept them.
I—and Her Majesty's Government—have no proposals for withdrawal from the Council of Europe and its obligations. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the issue, that is a matter for him, but this is an argument in which he must engage within his own party. When his party was in government, it supported the convention, and supported the Council of Europe. His own shadow Lord Chancellor supported the incorporation of the convention into our domestic law when the Bill that became the

407
Human Rights Act 1998 was going through the other place; and I remind him that, on Third Reading here, the Opposition Front Bench supported incorporation, and did not vote against it. I am pleased about that, because it demonstrated all-party support. As I explained to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), incorporation will enable us to ensure, over time, that the court is more sensitive in regard to our domestic law and traditions. The answer is not withdrawal from the Council of Europe.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I have no appetite for arguing with my own party, but the right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State responsible for this matter. Will he consider the proposition that a perfectly proper and proportionate response to this judgment, and to a number of others, would be to conclude that the Council of Europe may have outlived its usefulness as far as the United Kingdom is concerned? [Interruption.] Such a conclusion might not be welcomed by certain Members who have made a career of the Council of Europe, but it would resonate among members of the public.
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that view, and I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was never taken by the Conservative Governments whom he supported. I will not detain the House, but there is a long list of occasions on which the House has been asked to introduce legislation to bring our domestic arrangements in regard to one part of the law or another into line with judgments against us in the Strasbourg court. Under the last Conservative Government, that ranged from changes made with regard to the interception of communications to changes in respect of discretionary life sentences, included in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and changes contained in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, passed in the dying days of that Government.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: This case raises huge issues that go to the heart of our judicial system and, indeed, our democracy, and one tends to worry about whether people fully understand all the ins and outs of the legal system. Will the Home Secretary consider how we might continue to engage the public in a discussion of questions arising from the case? Today's statement has
408
made a welcome start, but, given the fundamental importance of many of the issues, I feel that we should think about how best to engage the public in a discussion of them and their consequences.
Mr. Straw: It remains an unfortunate fact that the public are too detached from the way in which our judicial system operates, which in turn leads to insufficient public confidence in our court system. There are a number of ways of dealing with that. One is through a thorough review of the way in which the courts operate. I am pleased to say that, on Tuesday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced just such a review, which is being undertaken by Lord Justice Auld, and which will take account of the implications of the Human Rights Act for the court system.
However, there is also the question of how we can involve victims more in the processes of the courts. We have to do that at every stage, whether victims have suffered a minor offence, or a grave crime, as in this case.
We have improved victim support funding. We are arranging for there to be victim and witness services at every magistrates court in the land. In addition, as I have made it clear to the House, we are looking carefully at how victim representatives can be involved in grave cases such as this.
Mr. George Stevenson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's measured response in this tragic case. Does he agree that all hon. Members should guard against the danger of giving the public the perception that we welcome European Court of Human Rights decisions that support the United Kingdom Government, but heavily criticise those that do not? Does he agree that such a perception, which may be held by the public in the light of some of the comments in the House today, could be dangerous?
Mr. Straw: As I have said, people have different views about the judgments. In a democracy, they are fully entitled to those views. In any event, I have to consider the judgments very carefully, but I have made the point that separation of powers, which is an essential feature of democracy, means that those in the Executive sometimes have to accept decisions that they may not find welcome.

Business of the House
1.21 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Transport Bill.
TUESDAY 21 DECEMBER—Debate on public expenditure on a Government motion.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Christmas recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 JANUARYSecond Reading of the Political Parties and Referendums Bill.
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
WEDNESDAY 12 JANUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Representation of the People Bill [2nd Day].
THURSDAY 13 JANUARY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Representation of the People Bill [3rd Day].
FRIDAY 14 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
I said that I would endeavour at the start of each month to give an indication of the business that is likely to be taken in Westminster Hall. The Liaison Committee proposes that the following business should be taken in Westminster Hall on Thursdays during January:
THURSDAY 13 JANUARY—Genetically Modified Organisms and Biotechnology—First report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 1998–1999, HC 286; and the relevant Government response.
Fifth report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 1998–99, HC 384; and the relevant Government response.
THURSDAY 20 JANUARY—Debate on small firms.
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY—The Prison Service in Northern Ireland—Fourth report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 1997–1998, HC 716; and the relevant Government response.
The debates on Select Committee reports have been set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means after consultation with the Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business when we return. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for implementing my suggestion last week that we bring forward the sitting hours on Tuesday.
Will there be a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the future of Wembley, as his self-imposed deadline has expired and there is much speculation about the stadium's future? If we cannot have a statement, might oral Question 11 on Monday to the Secretary of State on the subject be taken at the end of Question Time, to allow an opportunity for further discussion?
Will the Foreign Secretary make a statement before we rise about Chechnya, where events are moving quickly, so that he can outline the diplomatic initiatives that he and other European leaders have taken to limit death and destruction?
410
While we are away, will the Government announce that 2000 is to be another year of delivery? If so, will they announce all the targets that they missed in 1999?
I see that, this time last year, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked for the dates of the Easter and the Whitsun recess. I do not propose to push my luck, but for those hon. Members who like to plan ahead, is the right hon. Lady able to shine any light on the timing of the February constituency week? If she does not announce it today, the House will have to wait another month.
Finally, as this is the last business statement of the year, may I wish the right hon. Lady a merry Christmas and a bug-free new year? Those good wishes go to her staff, to Madam Speaker and to the staff of the House.
At the end of the last century, the House rose on 27 October for the Christmas recess, and returned on 30 January—a target, perhaps, for the Select Committee on Modernisation.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement that we have brought forward the timing of business on Tuesday. I think that that will be for the convenience of the whole House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about Wembley. I shall certainly draw his proposal to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The right hon. Gentleman will know that those matters are still under consideration, and that—although the initial deadline has passed—further work and consideration of the outcome are being undertaken. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend will be able on Monday to say anything further on those matters; but, as I said, I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to his attention.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Foreign Secretary will be making a statement on Chechnya. I am not aware of my right hon. Friend's intention to do so; as the right hon. Gentleman said, the situation is confused. However, I shall draw the request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
I shall pass over the partisan remark that the right hon. Gentleman clearly felt it necessary to make, and merely tell him that the Government are well on course to meeting the targets that we set ourselves, both this year and at the general election.
I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the dates of the February week—or say whether there will be such a week—although I understand, and am very mindful of, hon. Members' wish to know well in advance. However, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, I have also to be mindful of the progress of business, which is something that we have to take into account, and sometimes carefully monitor—especially when we have debates on, for example, whether a message should be received from the Lords.
I accept and am happy to return the right hon. Gentleman's good wishes, and I appreciate them. I share the wishes that he has expressed to Madam Speaker and her staff and to all the staff of the House.
I was also most interested in, and entertained by, the parallel that the right hon. Gentleman drew with the end of the previous century and the length of the Christmas recess in that year. I trust that the parallel will be taken

411
on board by the many Opposition Members whose reaction to the announcement of any recess is to say that it is too long, unprecedentedly long, and an abuse of position by the Government. I hope that they have learned from the historical parallels.
Mr. Paul Flynn: In the light of reports today that the Financial Services Authority is planning not to hold an inquiry into the mis-selling of mortgages, when can we debate early-day motion 11?
[That this House is alarmed at the continuing high sales of endowment mortgages; agrees with the Consumers' Association that endowments are 'risky inflexible products which typically pay seven times the commission of repayment mortgages'; calls for legislation to end the hidden charges and high redemption charges in other mortgages; and urges speedy compensation for the victims of mis-selling and the establishment of a financial advice service that will be independent of the selling process.]
There is abundant evidence that possibly millions of people have been mis-sold mortgages and that, if the inquiry is not held, they may be denied compensation.
We could also discuss the proposal that the Government should establish a website on which benchmark information—free of any need to make commissions—is given to the public. The general public have been using the NHS Direct website to gain information, and a financial advice website could both provide a valuable service and ensure that, for the first time ever, the public were able to receive advice entirely divorced from the need to earn commissions.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which will be taken on board by the responsible Ministers. He also said that the Financial Services Authority has decided not to proceed with an investigation into mortgage mis-selling, but that is not entirely my understanding. I was under the impression that the FSA was still considering what action, if any, needed to be taken to improve standards. Nevertheless, as I said, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Phil Willis: May I, on behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, offer season's greetings to the right hon. Lady, her staff and all Officers and Members of the House?
I also thank her for the business statement. We appreciate that the first week in January will be extremely busy. However, will she either make arrangements for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement to the House on the prospectus that was issued this week on the Learning and Skills Council, or provide time for a debate? The relevant Bill will be introduced not in this place but in another place on 20 January. The decisions involve a £6 billion budget, but we shall not have an opportunity to discuss the prospectus before the orders are laid before the other House. That is a crucial issue for a statement or a debate.
Mrs. Beckett: We all recognise the importance of my right hon. Friend's proposals. The House will have a proper opportunity to consider them and will wish to look
412
carefully at the issues. I cannot undertake to provide time for a special statement when our proposals will be in the public domain.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I are into gesture politics, but the House of Commons has a long and honourable record of seeking to protect the human rights of those who are not British citizens. Before she goes on holiday, will she draw the attention of the Foreign Office, and possibly the Home Secretary, to the case, highlighted on "Newsnight" last night, of a Hungarian detective who, in seeking to investigate frightening scams in Hungary, has been personally attacked and subsequently arrested on a trumped-up charge? If Hungary is to be an applicant to join the European Community, it is time it was reminded that police investigations of specific crimes are fundamental and basic procedures that we expect applicant states to support.
Mrs. Beckett: I respect my hon. Friend's serious approach to politics and I take her point entirely. I was not familiar with the case that she has raised, but I shall ensure that her remarks are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, as she requested.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and explain why Mr. Alan Donnelly, the Labour Member of the European Parliament for North-East England who has resigned, will be automatically replaced by a Labour candidate who stood, but was not elected, at the European elections? Surely there should be a by-election so that the electorate of the north-east can choose the candidate whom they want to represent them.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not prepared to ask the Home Secretary to come to the House to reaffirm a decision that has already been made by the House.
Mr. Michael Jack: Why has there been no mention so far in the Leader of the House's list of forthcoming attractions of a debate on the defence industry and Government policy towards it? Many thousands of my constituents work in the aerospace defence industry. They are very anxious to debate with Ministers the future of projects such as Meteor, the RAF's future heavy airlift capacity and the implications for British defence policy of the formation of BAE Systems. When might such a debate take place?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the date for such a debate, but the Government are anxious to bring the defence White Paper before the House as soon as we can. We shall want to hear the views of the Select Committee on Defence before we have a debate in the House, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall have a debate as early as we can.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: In this year of supposed delivery by the Government, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on prescriptions given by health authorities? How does she advise me to

413
reply to an elderly constituent of mine from Ashbourne whose husband is suffering from Alzheimer's disease? She says:
"the doctor cannot prescribe the drug Aricept which may help him because the Southern Derbyshire Health Authority will not fund it. I am told that if we were over in border in Nottinghamshire that we would be able to obtain this drug."
When will my constituent be able to get the drug to help her husband to overcome his debilitating disease?
Mrs. Beckett: I have every sympathy for those who care for people suffering from Alzheimer's. It is a terrible disease, and the stress that it places, particularly on the carers and families of sufferers, is extreme. However, the effectiveness of Aricept—as well as its availability—is contested, and it is not necessarily suitable for all cases. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) would not twitter—it is very distracting. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is studying the matter, and the Government will give its report the most serious attention.
Sir Sydney Chapman: In wishing the Leader of the House the compliments of the impending season, recognising that she is a fair-minded person and hoping that she is a far-sighted person too, may I ask her to agree that it would be entirely appropriate, at the dawn of a new millennium, if the Government were to provide for a day's debate on the Floor of the House on the problems facing our earth in the immediate future? Given that the population of our world has trebled in the last 70 years, and is expected to increase by a further 4 billion in the next 50 years; given that three quarters of the world's population is on a spectrum varying between under-nourishment and starvation; given that the land on which we can grow food is diminishing, and that our seas are being depleted of fishing stocks, does she agree—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have a debate just now.
Mr. Eric Forth: I blame the Government for all those things.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will always blame the Government—including for the increase in population, for which we have some responsibility on a minor scale.
The issues raised by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) are serious and fundamental, and they will be aired in a variety of forums in the new term of Parliament which begins after Christmas. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that Environment questions will be held on the second day back.
Mr. Edward Leigh: May I, too, wish the Leader of the House a merry Christmas and a happy new millennium? Will she confirm that it is a cardinal principle of any self-respecting Parliament that there should\be equal access to the Houses of Parliament for all hon. Members? Can we start the new millennium as we mean to go on? Will she give a commitment that,
414
on millennium night, as the minutes tick away to midnight, no member of the Government or any official or officer for whom the right hon. Lady is responsible will be enjoying the facilities of this House while the building is closed to all hon. Members? Does she agree that it is a principle of a good general that he does not reserve perks to himself that are denied to the poor bloody infantry?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman—may I return his good wishes?—will be aware that access to the House is a matter for Madam Speaker, and that she has given her ruling on this matter. I cannot recall whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to the entire course of the evening. There will be a reception at some point for winners of the millennium awards, who are not in any way, shape or form members of the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not be so churlish as to deny them that recognition. I am afraid I am not aware of what other members of the Government are doing for the rest of the evening.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate so that we can discuss how to make more accountable to this House Ministers who are sitting in the other place? The right hon. Lady will know that there are three Ministers in the other place who exercise important responsibilities: the Attorney-General, Lord Williams of Mostyn; Lord Falconer; and the latest Transport Minister, Lord Macdonald. I am not attacking them as individuals—no doubt they are splendid folk. However, these individuals exercise authority of considerable importance which touches on our constituents, and it is profoundly unsatisfactory that they are not accountable to elected Members. Can we have a debate as to how we can improve accountability in a democratic state?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Remember Lord Young and Lord Carrington.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right: there is nothing unprecedented about the holders of senior positions being in the House of Lords. He reminds me that a Foreign Secretary in the Thatcher Government sat in the Lords. I rather believe that Lady Chalker may have been Minister for Transport; she was certainly an Overseas Development Minister. There are many precedents.
Mr. Mackinlay: Lord Cockfield.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to interrupt. The Leader of the House is doing well on her own.
Mrs. Beckett: That is very kind of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I must admit that I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Not for the first time, not only the sense of history but the memory of Conservative Members is rather failing them.
Mr. John Hayes: I have no wish to be unnecessarily partisan, but necessity in these questions is a matter of fine judgment.

415
Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that street crime in London is on the increase, police morale is falling and there is widespread concern about the police strategy? Dr. Marian Fitzgerald's research produced a telling report criticising the strategy in London, for which the Government must ultimately take responsibility. Will the Leader of the House accede to her request for action, which is supported by victims, even by some former criminals and by the wider public? Given that this is literally a matter of life and limb, will she arrange an urgent debate to allow us to ask why, in the Government's supposed year of delivery, all that they are delivering in London is rising crime and falling police morale?
Mrs. Beckett: Again, Conservative Members' memories are failing them. Crime rose steadily throughout their period in office. We all greatly regret that. I am aware of the Fitzgerald report, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is carefully studying the issues that it raises. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a very early debate on the matter, although I have no doubt that the House will want to return to it and study it carefully.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Leader of the House will recall that I asked last week whether she would make available time for the Law Officers to come to the House to make a statement about the legal options open to this country in the light of the continued ban of our beef by France. Nothing has been forthcoming. The possibilities include injunctive relief. Our farmers have suffered another week of their desperate plight and I am looking for a response—please—so that we can tell our farmers what options we have. Forget a year of delivery: a week of delivery would be very nice, thank you.
Mrs. Beckett: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman what I told him last time: there will be oral questions during the first week back, and it is very clear where we stand legally, as the French Government are being taken to court and have been given a tight timetable within which to respond.
Mr. O'Brien: Injunctive relief.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of an injunction, and I have no doubt that that point has been taken on board. All Governments from time to time deal with issues that come before the European Court. I have not taken the mind of my colleagues on this matter, but it occurs to me that there may be times when the British Government would not want a rush to an injunction, and I can well imagine Conservative Members complaining bitterly if such a step were taken. All the factors must be carefully considered and I have no doubt that the Law Officers are indeed considering them.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: A few moments ago, we had a very serious statement on the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on the Thompson and Venables case; but that is not the only ruling issued by the court today. Has the Leader of the House received a request from the Secretary of State for Social Security to make an urgent statement to the House about the
416
Government being overruled on the payment of winter fuel benefit to men over 60? That will cost the Government an extra £30 million.
Mr. Forth: The taxpayer, not the Government.
Mr. Fabricant: Indeed, the taxpayer. One and a half million people will benefit, which I suppose is the good news. Far more seriously, it seems that the judgment is part of a major campaign, the ultimate objective of which is equal state pension ages for men and women. If the European Court of Human Rights accepts that, it will cost the Government and the taxpayer billions of pounds. When will a statement be made; and when will the Secretary of State apologise to the House for having passed legislation just 11 months ago that has so quickly been overruled?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's point is rather silly, because no Secretary of State can introduce legislation on the assumption that no court will ever make changes in it. However, the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks raised a serious issue. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security had not been aware that the judgment was to be made public this morning; otherwise, he would have made arrangements to inform the House. A parliamentary question has now been tabled and will be answered on the next sitting day. My right hon. Friend is considering urgently how he can inform right hon. and hon. Members of the judgment.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Has not one product of the so-called year of delivery been the delivery of a parody of a democratic electoral system for European elections? Out of 89 MEPs elected last June, only 29 were Labour. Within six months, two of them have voluntarily stepped down and there is no prospect of a by-election at which the electorate could punish the Labour party for such irresponsible behaviour. The Leader of the House has already said that the Home Secretary will not make a statement about the disgraceful and undemocratic system that has been imposed, but will the relevant Foreign Office Minister make a statement about what the Labour party is playing at when two of its derisory total of 29 MEPs have stepped down in this opportunistic and dishonourable way?
Mrs. Beckett: I can only conclude that it hurts Conservative Members deeply that the Labour Government are engaged in a year of delivery—that is obviously the line of the week—with the arrival of the national minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the greatest ever increase in child benefit. The Conservatives opposed all those measures and would remove them. It is unwise of the Conservatives to keep reminding the public of those facts, but that is only one of the unwise decisions that they have made.
It was the House's decision to introduce the system for the European elections, and much nonsense was talked about how it was unprecedented for people to have only one group of candidates to choose from. That is precisely the system that we use in our general elections, in which we do not have a range of Conservative candidates—for

417
example—to choose from. Indeed, when we do, as in the mayor of London election, the Conservatives make a real mess of it.
Dr. Lewis: By-elections.
Mrs. Beckett: I am coming to that point. I understand the enthusiasm for by-elections among Conservative Members and the news media, but I have never observed that that enthusiasm is shared by the public. In any event, there is no ministerial responsibility for the resignations.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: After the welcome statement from the Prime Minister's spokesman yesterday about a U-turn on the Government's delivery of a fox hunting policy, in that the Bill to be introduced by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was doomed to fail because of lack of parliamentary time, may we have a statement from the Home Secretary? The Leader of the House will remember that we had a written answer on the last day of the previous Session that said that the Government would give time to such a Bill. Given that the millennium dome is now infested with foxes, the Government's U-turn is welcome, but may we have a statement to explain the change of policy?
Mrs. Beckett: Yet again the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There is no change of policy, and I know that that will be a deep disappointment to him. The Government have undertaken to provide time for a private Member's Bill, but we have made it plain that we wish first to see and digest the report on the impact of hunting from the Burns committee. When that has been received and presented to Parliament, the Government will be prepared to try to find time to assist a private Member's Bill, should a suitable opportunity arise.
Mr. Owen Paterson: May I offer the Leader of the House the best wishes of the season?
On 21 September 1995, the present Prime Minister said, as reported in the Financial Times, that he had no plans to increase tax. Since then, we have had a deluge of taxes amounting to £40.7 billion, according to the Library, which is an impartial source respected on both sides of the House. Before the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Chancellor admitted that taxes had gone up, and we had a spirited debate at Treasury Question Time in which other Treasury Ministers expressed doubts about the Library's figures. I trust the Library figures.
Will the Leader of the House deliver to the House the present of a full debate on the Government's increases in taxation during this so-called year of delivery?
Mrs. Beckett: I really do not understand why the Conservative party continues to make that claim when it is quite evident that, before, during and since the election, it has done nothing but complain about the windfall tax. Indeed, before the election, it made much—
Mr. Paterson: Table B1!
Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shouting and waving tables. Before the election,
418
Conservative Members endlessly referred to the fact that we, as the then Opposition, refused to commit ourselves to anything beyond not raising the rate of income tax for standard rate payers and for higher rate payers. So it is no good their now trying to convince the British people that they were in some way unaware of—(Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will behave himself. He has just been called to ask a question, but then he misbehaves. He was not misbehaving before he was called.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is a serial misbehaver.
The hon. Gentleman's main point was to ask me to find time for a special debate. I simply draw to his attention something that he may have overlooked: there will be such a debate on Tuesday 21 December.
Mr. Forth: In the interests of open government and to allow the Prime Minister the opportunity to set the record straight, will the Leader of the House provide an urgent opportunity for the Prime Minister to come to the House to explain what that nice Mr. Jospin really said to him about beef, and particularly about Scottish beef? That would also allow the Prime Minister to explain to us what he apparently did not say to the First Minister in Scotland. It might even give the First Minister, who is still the distinguished right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), the opportunity to explain to the House what he did not hear from the Prime Minister about what the Prime Minister had heard from the Prime Minister of France.
This is a very worrying matter. It touches not only on the intimate relationship that the Prime Minister claims to have with his European counterparts, but on the whole matter of devolution and what on earth is going on between the Prime Minister and his Scottish First Minister.
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman has not been reading the Daily Mail with his usual assiduous attention—otherwise, he would have seen in yesterday's edition the remarks of the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, who said:
"At no stage … were there any serious and detailed proposals put forward by France to allow Scottish beef to return to the French market."
He added, as reported in The Independent:
"This can only be a blatant attempt by the French to shift attention away from their unwarranted and illegal action and to attempt to drive a wedge between different parts of the United Kingdom."
I rest my case.
Miss Julie Kirkbride rose—
Hon. Members: Twitter away!
Miss Kirkbride: Quite so. If the right hon. Lady has seen page 2 of The Sun today, she will know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been

419
crowned by The Sun as king of the Commons. That follows the Prime Minister's risible performance yesterday when, in response to my right hon. Friend's questions, he sought to justify his failure in the year of delivery. Clearly, the business of next week has been so organised that the Prime Minister does not have to appear again to make a further risible performance. However, will the Leader of the House consider holding Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday next week, so that my right hon. Friend can have his crown reconfirmed—or is the Prime Minister frit?
Mrs. Beckett: I was of course present, as always, at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. I thought that
420
there was a risible performance; it was that of the Leader of the Opposition, who fell way below even those low standards that he has occasionally set—
Mr. McLoughlin: You cannot be serious.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I am serious: it was pathetic.
I have not seen page 2 of The Sun and the hon. Lady should probably be grateful that the Leader of the Opposition does not appear on page 3. However, I recall that the right hon. Gentleman recently made newspaper readers aware of his top 10 favourite jokes. He is good at jokes, and they are what he should stick to.

ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]
ESTIMATES DAY
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT 2000–01
    Class III, Vote 6

      Aviation Safety
      [Relevant documents: Fourteenth Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1998-99, Aviation Safety, HC 275, and the Government's response thereto, Cm. 4539; and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Annual Report 1999: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2002, Cm. 4204.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a sum, not exceeding £511,039,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on support to nationalised industries; grants to Railtrack, British Rail, London Transport, Docklands Light Railway, DoA Ltd; MRPS grant; payments in respect of expenditure relating to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; expenditure connected with the privatisation of British Rail Business; other consultancies; expenditure relating to Commission for Integrated Transport; capital expenditure by transport industries funded by EC grants; railway industry and National Freight Company pensions funds; National Freight Company travel concessions; rebate of fuel duty to bus operators; ports and shipping services; Royal Travel; miscellaneous services; civil aviation services; international aviation services; transport security; freight grants, and expenditure associated with the non rail privatisation programme.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      1.55 pm
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Aviation safety is not a subject that can ever be treated lightly. Since the creation of the aviation industry, this country has had an extremely good safety record. Britain has built up a worldwide reputation for understanding the needs and priorities involved in keeping passengers and pilots safe.
      The Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs undertook a detailed investigation of aviation safety. We did not want to disturb the industry's good reputation, nor to encourage the public to believe that there had been obvious instances of backsliding from the standards that we have always maintained. However, it would be foolish to pretend that United Kingdom Governments have always had clear and coherent policies with regard to aviation. Indeed, one of the worries is that, for some years, the House of Commons has not been treated to clear guidelines about the future of the aviation industry.
      The Select Committee set out to look closely at all aspects of the working of the safety regulations, in general aviation and in the commercial sector. We were very worried that changes that might be taking place in the near future might cause details of aspects that we considered essential to be, if not ignored, then at least overlooked.
      The Committee submitted a very detailed and carefully researched report. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin),
      422
      will not misunderstand me when I say that I find the tone of the Government's response rather disappointing. That may reflect one of the problems raised in the report. We were concerned about what can only be described as the complacency of the aviation industry, and it is important to spell out exactly what we meant by that.
      The Committee took a lot of information and evidence from all sectors of the industry. We were worried—there is no point in pretending otherwise—that the industry was not prepared to look too closely at its behaviour and its future, in case the public got the idea that a severe and real problem existed. We were careful to make it clear that it was not the Committee's aim or intention to put that idea in people's minds, as it did not accord with our experience.
      However, we considered that the industry would be underestimating its own position if it gave the impression that it was content with the status quo and implied that, as everything was already perfect, there was no need for close examination of safety matters. I had hoped that Ministers would be prepared to read the report in a way that would enable them to take on board some of the difficulties that we discovered in our researches.
      I want to put it on record that the Committee is satisfied that the United Kingdom is fortunate in having very professional pilots, engineers and—above all—air traffic control officers. The safety ethos is absolutely fundamental for those people, but the Committee is worried about relationships inside the industry. They may be a little too convivial. Close monitoring by Government institutions is essential and is in the best interests of the industry itself.
      Some difficulties could be dealt with by the clear separation of the safety regulation group from the Civil Aviation Authority into an independent, free-standing operation, as the Select Committee recommends. At present, they operate closely and, obviously, the industry must co-operate on a day-to-day basis. Nevertheless, the Select Committee believes that it is essential that there should be a clear division between National Air Traffic Services and the CAA and that that division can be seen to be operating.
      I should like to take up other points in the Government reply. Would my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary like to give me an answer to the question of virtual airlines? The Government seemed to say that, in the aviation industry, some people would wet lease aircraft and then be prepared to subcontract every aspect of the work, but that was not a real problem because there was not too much evidence that happens. Can my hon. Friend give the number of aircraft that are operated on behalf of United Kingdom airlines which are flying for hire and reward out of the UK, which are not on the UK register and which are subject to UK safety oversight or the flight operations inspectorate review? Those aircraft will carry British citizens, so we have a right to say to the Government that it is not good enough for them to say that they are not aware of anybody carrying out that particular operation, so it is not a problem. The operation of such aircraft is a virtual airline, even as defined by the Government, and it is tremendously important that we look closely at this. Air Foyle and Heavylift operate Russian-registered cargo aircraft. They are interesting examples of the sort of problem that concerns us.

      423
      Can the Minister advise us how many recommendations the air accidents investigation branch has made in the past 10 years and how many have been implemented or subject to an airworthiness notice by the CAA Airworthiness Requirement Board? How many of those relate to the outcome of the Manchester 737 accident? We ask these questions because we believe that they are relevant to the Committee's work. Can the Minister tell us whether the AAIB now has all the qualified staff and resources that it will need to meet the size of the task that it has in a developing and increasingly active industry?
      The Minister will know that we raised the subject of helicopter inspection because we were concerned that it seemed that some inspectors might have several skills but not necessarily those connected with the helicopter industry. The Minister will know that helicopters are different aircraft with different needs and responsibilities. Would my hon. Friend accept an inspector with a public service vehicle licence being drafted into the railway system to operate as part of the railway inspectorate? I do not think that he would. Therefore, I should like to know that all those involved in helicopter operations inspection are qualified helicopter pilots with substantial helicopter operating experience. As my hon. Friend will know, unfortunately there have been a number of incidents which have raised considerable worries about what happens with helicopters, and the public need to be reassured.
      We come now to our perennial friend, the enroute centre at Swanwick. Is the Minister really going to tell us that the centre will open during the winter of 2001–02? Will the specifications be exact? Will the centre be fully operational, and will it provide the necessary increase in capacity? The aviation industry has a greater rate of growth than almost any other in the country. It is shooting ahead, and will continue to do so. Given the pressures on air traffic controllers and air space, the functional systems will be crucial. Unless we can be sure that those systems will operate in the way that will best protect the interests of the general public, we will have some very real worries.
      I want to ask about foreign aircraft inspections. Does the increase in the level of inspections include inspections of aircraft that are operated on behalf of United Kingdom airlines flying for hire and reward out of the UK which are not on our register and subject to UK safety oversight?
      There are difficulties in relation to planes overflying the centre of our cities. I tabled some questions to the Minister, and expected to be told that cases of aircraft flying over central London on their way to Heathrow with one engine inoperable numbered one or two at most. I was stunned to find out that there had been 17 such cases. I hope that the Department is investigating this with some vigour and is not prepared to rest on the assumption that planes can fly safely with one engine. I am happy to know that a two-engine plane can fly with one engine, but if it is also running low on fuel, as has happened in some instances, many people in this capital city will say that that is not ideal.
      There have also been instances of very large aircraft landing at Heathrow with almost empty tanks. I would like to think that those are isolated incidents but, if they are not, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me rather more than he did in his answer to my question. It is not good enough to say to the House of Commons, "It doesn't happen very often." The one time that it does go wrong, a number of lives may be at risk, and we may
      424
      have good reason to regret that any aircraft was able to operate in such conditions over our capital city. I shall not second-guess aircraft commanders, who take the final decision on safety but there are very real worries. I hope that we shall be given information this afternoon that is more positive than hitherto.
      We were concerned about the training of engineers in the aviation industry. Again, I am sorry to say that the reply was rather complacent. In the past, aircraft engineers were very specialised and were trained accordingly. Unfortunately, evidence to the Select Committee showed that we are losing a whole generation of engineers. Many of them are retiring and are not being replaced. We would like to know that the Government are confronting the situation and are not content simply to say that it is a matter for the industry. It will not be a matter for the industry if we suddenly find ourselves with operational difficulties. We should consider not only the training of aircraft engineers but how we can bring more people in to the industry and encourage them to maintain the high standards that we have had in the past.
      The issue also has a knock-on effect on training people to fly. The United States, which has a very large industry, has the advantage of extremely good weather in many parts. It can encourage people from all over the globe to go there and receive aviation training; not only are the standards of training different from ours, but the cost is much lower. Since we have the expertise, I hope that we can come up with practical ways to lower costs for people who want to fly and to encourage them to remain within the UK.
      I shall not go into detail on the aircraft cabin safety problems mentioned in our report. However, the Government responses continually tell us either that the Government are thinking about a particular difficulty or that, for one or another reason, they do not think a point of any importance. Cabin safety has been dismissed as capable of producing neither any new research nor any response. That seems cavalier and unimaginative. If there are problems with aircraft and air cabin safety, the Government should examine them, rather than saying that they have read what the Committee has said, but are not impressed and need not worry further.
      The House of Commons entrusts Select Committees with the role of scrutinising industries sponsored by Whitehall Departments because the detailed examination of problems likely to arise is something that Select Committees do best. We are able to question Ministers, to raise detailed problems with those who give evidence and to call a wide cross-section of people before us, as we did when we compiled the report. On general aviation, commercial flying and helicopters, we considered all the difficulties that we foresaw, and we have attempted to produce a report that is not sensational, that does not seek a hysterical response but that demands serious answers.
      We were disappointed with the quality of the Government's response. We felt that our work merited rather less complacency and rather more vigour. For the first time in many years, a Government have said that they will have a policy on aviation and produce a detailed document. They say that they will treat the industry with seriousness that it has not been given in the past. That is both essential and welcome, but there are matters for the Minister to consider in the interim.

      425
      We value the work being done in his Department, but the appendices to my Committee's report contain, at page 192, a simple graph from the Boeing company titled "We need to continuously improve aviation safety". That graph clearly shows the gap already opening up. We need to close it. We are therefore right to say to the Minister and everyone else involved that the industry may be very safe, but it must not be complacent or assume that no change is needed. The industry must create inspectorates that are seen to be independent and must address whether they have sufficient and properly trained staff. It must also address whether the independent safety authority will be properly funded, and it must do it now.
      The Minister, like the rest of us, saw the public response to a savage train accident recently. We can tell those involved in it that accidents are rare—that, happily, they are not a common occurrence—but the public responded by telling the Government to take difficult safety decisions, and to do it now. The public did not want safety left to the commercial end of the industry. If that is true of railways, it is triply, quadruply, eternally true of the aviation industry. I hope that my hon. Friend can give us more heart today than he did in his response to my Committee.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. James Gray: It is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), as it is to serve behind her on the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. She and I do not always agree, but we enjoy our exchanges across the Committee Room table. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) to the Front Bench. His Back-Bench colleagues very much look forward to hearing what he has to say in an important, if slightly ill-attended, debate.
      The debate is important because aviation in the United Kingdom is at present 100 per cent. safe. It was interesting to hear the hon. Lady raise the difference between perception and reality. We must say as clearly and frequently as we can that there is no lack of safety in the UK. The aeroplanes, pilots, airports and air traffic controllers display no slippage of safety. We probably have the safest air travel in the world, as several people who gave evidence to the Committee acknowledged.
      None the less, two points must be made. Perception may differ from reality. As the hon. Lady said, that is certainly true of the railways. We must pay as much attention to ensuring that the travelling public know that travel is safe as we do to making it so. A good example of the difference between perception and reality is the Y2K problem. I understand from airlines that there has been a significant decline in air travel scheduled for the millennium evening and the next day. People are concerned about Y2K even though anyone who knows anything about it is convinced that there will be no danger of any kind to the travelling public on 1 January 2000.
      Secondly, in saying how safe air transport is, one must leave no room for complacency. If some of the changes recommended in the report are not made, British aviation may not remain as safe as it is today. It is important that the Committee held its inquiry and produced a valuable
      426
      report in which nearly every word is eminently sensible. Like the hon. Lady, I have large reservations about the quality of the Government's response, and I look forward to hearing the Minister explain the thin and disappointing nature of some of his responses.
      I shall focus on two or three air safety issues rather than the generality of the report. As the hon. Lady said, air traffic has increased hugely during the past few years. Over the next 10 years, it is predicted to increase by 50 per cent. That prediction applies particularly in the south-east of England. When I worked at the former Department of the Environment, there was a constant cry of Rucatse—runway capacity in the south-east. The subject continually appeared in the Secretary of State's red box, and there were constant discussions about what we could do about runway capacity. That problem remains to be dealt with. We must find more capacity, or our high safety standards will, without question, be compromised.
      A related matter to which the hon. Lady made little reference was the future of the National Air Traffic Services. Without a vibrant and successful NATS, our high standards may be compromised. Already, there are signs that overload on controllers has grown. The volume and complexity of traffic has increased overload to 49 incidents this year—double the number in the previous year. Overload is increasing, and if Swanwick is not in place in good time, that increase will continue.
      It will interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about Swanwick. His predecessors offered dates for when Swanwick would be up and running, but these dates always slipped. The latest date given, I think, was April 2002, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister confirm that, although he would doubtless be putting his job on the line by doing so. He looks as if he may be about to intervene to confirm that date, or not.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Many of my predecessors were members of the Government whom he supported, and many of the problems at Swanwick arose during their time in office. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he deals with the problem, and that he will do so in a mature and responsible way.
      Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for pointing that out. I try to do everything in a mature and responsible way, so I shall follow the precedent.
      I acknowledge that the situation is as the Minister describes. When the project was launched, the completion date was set for 1990 or thereabouts, and it has gone back and back. That has happened under both Governments.
      I always try to avoid party political splits and divisions on the Select Committee, as my colleagues across the Floor will doubtless agree, and try to address the issues in as broad a bipartisan way as we can. I prefer to leave out the party politics for the moment, although one or two of the topics that I shall cover later may contain a small element of party politics.
      We need to know when Swanwick will be up and running, and what effect that will have on air safety in England. What will happen to NATS? The Government claim to have come up with some clever public-private

      427
      partnership. The truth is that no one has the remotest idea of what it is or how it will work. It seems that 48 per cent. will be in the private sector, 5 per cent. with the workers and the balance with the Government.
      Who will control the company? Who will run it? Who will have responsibility for employment matters? Who will take the risk if the company goes down? Who will benefit if the company makes a large profit? Who will make the decisions? All that is unclear. The Government display a split personality with regard to privatisation, as in the case of DERA—the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. They cannot decide whether to privatise it or not—apparently not, at present. On the future of London Underground, one moment the Government are doing complicated deals with Rai1track, and the next minute they are not, for reasons best known to themselves.
      I am puzzled by the figures that the Government produced in the explanatory notes to the Transport Bill, which will receive its Second Reading on Monday. According to paragraph 233 on page 40, the partial sale of NATS
      "could raise in the region of £350 million."
      Of that, £300 million goes to pay off NATS's debts. That leaves a balance of £50 million. Of that £50 million, as I understand paragraph 233—if the Government are wrong again, perhaps the Minister will correct me—an astonishing £35 million goes to my former colleagues in the City of London in fees of one sort or another, apparently leaving a net figure of £15 million for the privatisation of NATS. If the Minister wants to correct that, I dare say he will. It will be interesting to know how much money the Treasury intends to net from the sale of NATS.
      Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. He is probably aware—but perhaps he is not—that I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Transport attended the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee last week. We were grilled on that topic very ably, as one would expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The hon. Gentleman was not present, nor was any member of the Conservative party. That would have been the place to get the answers to some of his questions.
      Mr. Gray: The Minister has not answered the point, but no doubt he will do so when he winds up. On that day, we had an Opposition day debate on transport in the Chamber, in which I spoke. I took the view that my duties in the Chamber overrode my duties to the Select Committee. If the Minister cares to consult Hansard for that day, he will discover that I made a reasonable speech on that occasion. That is the reason why we were not present in the Select Committee. An Opposition day debate in the Chamber seemed to be an occasion of some importance, although perhaps the Minister does not recognise that. [Interruption.] I asked him a direct question—
      Aft Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister does not have licence to shout across the Floor. He may not do that.
      Mr. Gray: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      428
      The House will have noticed that I made a particular point about the net take from NATS. The Minister intervened, apparently to give me the answer, but all he could do was to make a cheap party political point about the fact that I was not present in the Select Committee because I was doing my duty in the Chamber. That is a strange way for a junior Minister to behave, but the House will have noted what he did.
      Because of the way in which the risk transference may or may not occur in the proposed privatisation, my reading of the explanatory notes to the Transport Bill is that the net take to the Treasury will be £15 million. If that is an incorrect reading, the Minister may care to explain what will happen to the £300 million debt, who will take that debt on, how it will be transferred and what the net take to the Treasury will be.
      All of us who are considering the privatisation of NATS will be interested to hear that. If the Treasury will achieve a large take and spend the money on something useful—in the transport sphere, I hope, as is claimed—perhaps that will encourage us to go along with the Government's rather muddled proposal. If, however, the Treasury take is only £15 million, we must ask why the Government propose to carry out the privatisation. I expect that some Labour Back Benchers may ask the same question.
      The privatisation of NATS is the first issue on which the Government must be straightforward. The Minister will come up with the notion of the golden share. He will tell us how important the golden share is, that it means that the Government will not lose control of NATS, and that we can be certain that NATS will remain a British organisation. Will he tell the House what he makes of the European Commission's current challenge on the ownership of golden shares in other companies, particularly BAA?
      Will the Government be able to have the golden share? Will they be able to guarantee that, for example, the French and German companies currently looking at NATS will not be allowed to take control of Britain's airspace? Before the general election, the Labour party went to great lengths to assure us that one thing that was not for sale was Britain's airspace. Like many of their other early pledges, that one seems to have gone down the tubes.
      NATS is the first matter of concern to me. The second is Europe. There are various aspects worth examining. We wholly support the notion of co-operation with other European states on air traffic control. We would be mad if we did not. Of course we want to make certain that all 28 European countries that take part in Eurocontrol co-operate in controlling our airspace.
      That is quite different from doing what is proposed if the European Union becomes part of Eurocontrol. That is not co-operation, but integration. It implies that a European body has integrated control of the airspaces. That means giving up BAA-NATS control of British airspace to a European organisation—a sort of federalism of the air. Many commentators on the proposal have said exactly that. One of them said that, if European countries have given up control of the land borders, they should also give up control of the air borders.
      I am sorry to introduce a party political point, but the Conservative party firmly believes that we should keep our land borders and our air borders, not least because our standards of air traffic control are in many respects a great

      429
      deal better than those of some of our European partners. Like any other such integration, the lowest common denominator will be the standard. There will be co-ordination across Europe at the lowest level of any European country. If there were such co-operation across Europe, there would unquestionably be a lowering of British standards.
      A similar argument applies to the Joint Aviation Authority, which seeks to ensure uniform safety standards across the member states. At present, its decisions are not legally binding on the member states, although there is a suggestion that that may become the case. The House will be aware that the UK Flight Safety Committee gave evidence to the Select Committee and described the JAA as a camel train which is
      "as quick as the slowest camel in the train."
      That is quite a good description of the averaging down to the lowest common denominator that I described with regard to Eurocontrol. It is unfortunate that the UK's excellent record in aviation safety may be forced lower to fit in with that of our European partners.
      My greatest concern relating to Europe involves the proposed European Aviation Safety Authority—EASA—which would operate using qualified majority voting. If that happened, debates such as this in the Palace of Westminster on the subject of air safety would no longer have any purpose. Parliament would no longer have its say over air safety across Europe. That would be handed over to a European organisation with qualified majority voting, and we might find ourselves, as we so often do in a European context, in a minority of one. I am happy to be in a minority of one so long as we have a veto. However, qualified majority voting would prevent us from vetoing our European partners' proposals.
      The Select Committee considered that the UK aviation industries proud record might be undermined by full JAA membership and possibly by EASA, and recommended that the Government should clarify whether EASA would have legal powers to impose its proposed standards. It was disappointing that the Government's response to the report did not answer that point. I hope that, when the Minister replies today, he will say whether EASA will have such powers.
      I have several concerns about non-European operators in the air. Responsibility for inspecting foreign-registered aircraft which land in the UK—ramp checks—lies with the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Only 59 ramp checks were carried out in 1997–98 and 63 in 1998–99. The Government have generously said that the number of ramp checks must be increased and that 200 foreign planes coming into the UK will be checked. Recently, planes landing at Heathrow were found to have insufficient fuel on board, and that is the sort of thing that would be found by a ramp check. However, set against the 1,762,820—nearly 2 million—air transport movements through Britain in 1998, those 200 ramp checks are wildly insufficient. That is a matter of great concern to my constituents in Wiltshire and even more so to people in the capital.
      I wrote to the noble Lord Macdonald, who I understand is responsible for transport matters in the other place. It is sad that he cannot answer for transport matters in this
      430
      place. It is odd that English transport should be controlled by a Scotsman in the other place. Incidentally, he is the fourth Scotsmen to deal with English transport matters—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am rather amused that the hon. Gentleman, who occasionally tells us that he is a Scot, should find it so annoying that other Scots have positions of some importance.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will not start criticising the Scots.
      Mr. Gray: You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other Scots who run this part of England, are none the less elected, in my case by the English and in your case by the Scots. Lord MacDonald is not elected at all and yet, curiously, is pontificating on English matters.
      I raised a constituency case with the noble Lord concerning the safety standards of foreign carriers operating into the UK, and he said that civil airlines are required to comply with the "minimum safety standards". We are not asking foreign carriers to aim high and try to do as well as British carriers; we require foreign carriers to comply only with the absolute minimum. That is particularly worrying.
      That matter was raised with me by my constituent, Mr. Stokes, of Hullavington. He quoted the worrying statistic that Ryanair, an Irish airline, currently landing in the UK, employs 18 Serbian pilots. It is curious that an Irish airline not governed by our high standards should employ Serbian pilots. That was apparently the case during the Kosovan war when we were at war with Serbia. None the less, we allowed Serbian pilots to land at our airports. That is bizarre and I hope that the Minister will tell us how that can happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening again, perhaps during an even more serious war in the future. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), wrote to me stating:
      "there are no legal reasons why these pilots should not be employed in the UK."
      When we are at war with Serbia, Serbian pilots should be prevented from operating in the UK. If the Minister cannot answer my questions, perhaps he will consider changing the regulations so that such a situation does not arise again.
      The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to a number of matters to which the Minister should reply. One concerned the width of the aisle through the forward bulkhead in the Boeing 737. Coming from a vaguely military background, I have always been puzzled why, when soldiers travel by plane—by crab air, as the RAF is called in the Army—they always face the back of the plane because it is safest, yet civilians always face forward. Why is that?
      It is important constantly to reiterate that British air travel has the highest standards in the world, and we must keep it that way. Sorting out the botched job of NATS involves a consideration of whether we are lowering standards by palling up with the Europeans on these matters, and a general consideration of what we can do with regard to runway capacity in the south-east. Such considerations are important if we are to continue to be seen as the safest air carriers in the world. My concern is

      431
      that the Government's response to our carefully worded and thought through report does not satisfy us on that point. Many will listen to what the Minister says in his reply extremely carefully. The Government's response to the report did not give us such satisfaction, so I hope that the Minister will find it in his heart to do so today.
      2.36 pm
      Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) dealt with some matters on which I want to concentrate. However, given the situation, of which he is aware, my speech may have a slightly different slant.
      I was pleased to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. With her usual penetrating insight, she focused attention on a significant area of the debate which the Minister must answer this afternoon. The UK has had an excellent aviation safety record to date, but we might have taken it for granted for too long, and public confidence may not be retained.
      Hearing the Deputy Prime Minister's welcome statement this week that there is to be an additional £80 billion for transport, the public may wonder why, for only another £1 billion, air traffic control cannot be maintained in the public sector. I wonder whether the public have worked that formula out. We are talking in real terms of only a small amount of money being returned to the Government—a profit of some 7 per cent.—so it is strange that we should be moving down the uncertain road of this public-private partnership.
      Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I travel fairly regularly on the shuttle, and you will know that much frustration is caused by the delays at Heathrow on a Monday morning. That it why it is important that we should hear from the Minister this afternoon just when Swanwick will be up and running. More importantly, we need to know when Prestwick will be given the go ahead. Since I entered the House in 1992, there have been many uncertainties about the Prestwick building programme, so one way or the other we need to know when that programme will go ahead. Both sites must become operational at the earliest opportunity.
      Ms Sandra Osborne: Does my hon. Friend understand the frustrations of my constituents and the many employees at the Scottish centre at Prestwick about the continuing delays there which started when the previous Government questioned the two-centre strategy and then instituted a botched PFI project? Does he agree that the continuing delays are causing intense frustration and worry in Scotland?
      Mr. Donohoe: Yes. My hon. Friend is a great champion of getting that building programme under way. As a neighbouring Member, I receive a great deal of representation from air traffic controllers at Prestwick. They are frustrated because the programme has not gone ahead and is not already in place. Given the amount of time that has elapsed between the announcement, with all its information about the future, it is amazing that, in 1999, as we move into a new millennium, not a single sod of soil has been cut on the site to enable the programme to go ahead.
      Another comparison that is made with the proposed public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services is the privatisation of British Airways and BAA.
      432
      Yet there is no comparison between British Airways, which competes with British Midland—and, dare I say it, Ryanair—and air traffic control, a service in which there cannot be competition. Let us hope that there is no competition; clearly, NATS should continue to be a monopoly. It is disgusting that we are considering taking it outside the public sector. My view is based on safety considerations and the public perception of those matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned the recent accident at Paddington in that context. The public should be accorded the respect that they deserve.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the mind of the public. Their views are reflected in those of the pilots. On 13 of the past 14 occasions when I travelled between Edinburgh and London, I asked the pilots for their views on the proposals. Every one is unanimously behind the British Air Line Pilots Association and Mr. Chris Darke. They are worried about who is in control when they have to land at the busy airports of Heathrow and Gatwick.
      Mr. Donohoe: As usual, my hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge. The Select Committee took evidence from BALPA and we are therefore aware of pilots' anxieties. As a regular traveller on the route that my hon. Friend mentioned, I have been lobbied by pilots on the same subject. However, there will be plenty of opportunities for us to discuss NATS in future. It is only one aspect of air safety, and I want to mention some of the other subjects that the admirable Select Committee report considered.
      First, I want to consider establishing an over-arching transport safety authority. Lessons should be learned from accidents that happen in all industries, not only the one that we are considering. We are perhaps better placed to deal with the problems of the virtual airlines, which have already been mentioned. However, it is more important for the industry to have well-qualified and highly motivated staff. I am especially worried about staff shortages in the safety regulation group. I am pleased to note that extra payments will be made to flight operations inspectors. I ask the Government to show similar flexibility in other cases.
      The Select Committee was especially worried about the potential shortage of pilots and other staff. A review of air traffic operations took place in 1993. If PPP were introduced, staff shortages, coupled with the new owners' efficiency savings, would be extremely worrying. We must ensure that that does not lead to a drop in standards; standards are everything for the aviation industry.
      Previous speeches have covered other subjects, but I want to concentrate on the fact that pilots must maintain United Kingdom standards, and be supported to do that. We welcome the Government's position. The Chicago convention and further testing of the Joint Aviation Authority require further attention in future.
      There must be a greater focus on adequate training facilities in the industry. I do not believe that we should leave that to the private sector. The Select Committee concentrated on that. The Government must monitor the provision of facilities and ensure that the industry pays for the necessary facilities to maintain the high quality of services.

      433
      The lack of aircraft maintenance engineers is worrying. As an engineer, I know the importance of maintaining planes and all equipment. Evidence to the Select Committee suggested a reduction in the number of maintenance engineers. We welcome the fact that the Government will establish a working group. However, working groups do not reach conclusions as quickly as they might, and the problem requires immediate attention. The Government must ensure that the industry fulfils its responsibilities on aircraft maintenance engineers and training in general.
      We must emphasise the quality of air traffic regulation in this country compared with that in Europe. Some anxieties have been expressed about air traffic regulations but, rather than leading to United Kingdom standards dropping to those of some other countries in Europe, the regulations should ensure that standards are maintained and even improved.
      Parts of the Government's response to the report have been disappointing. They need to sharpen their responses to the particular anxieties that have been expressed today. I hope that, this afternoon, we will receive some of the answers that we did not get when we presented the report to Ministers.
      2.48 pm
      Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Transport safety is important to the public, especially after the Paddington rail crash. The debate is especially timely in view of the recent publication of the Transport Bill, which provides for the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. The Select Committee has considered that proposal in a separate report. Nevertheless, it would be absurd not to consider public-private partnership in the debate, and many hon. Members have referred to it at length. I shall also comment on it.
      The Liberal Democrats remain opposed to selling off NATS. The Select Committee's report and the Government's response contains nothing that convinces us that we should believe otherwise. The report's recommendations reinforce our opinion. Recommendation (h) rightly points to the dangers of continuing delay to the new air traffic control centre at Swanwick. The most important requirement is to ensure that the new centre at Swanwick is made operational without further delay. The Government acknowledged that in their response to the Select Committee, in which they claim that they are committed to opening the new en route centre at Swanwick as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made that point in a recent debate on transport safety.
      In that debate, the Deputy Prime Minister rightly pointed out that there was already an overspend on the project and that Swanwick was more than three years late under the current system. That is entirely true, so it is all the more important to get on with making the centre operational, which is what NATS should be concentrating on.
      Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether a major privatisation process and all the uncertainty that that entails will allow the management of NATS to concentrate, with no distractions, on getting Swanwick up
      434
      and running at the earliest opportunity. It is worth pointing out that NATS, in a briefing today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, said that the whole debate, which has been going on since 1994, has been "very distracting and debilitating". Perhaps the Minister will say that it is having no impact on the delay to Swanwick, but that would contradict what NATS said in the briefing. He must confirm when Swanwick will be up and running. In the Government's response to the Select Committee report he said winter 2001–02 but, in response to my parliamentary question, he said spring 2002. The report and the answer were made at more or less the same time—there were perhaps a couple of weeks between them—so which is it?
      The PPP for NATS is wrong at this time, although it is of course wrong in principle, and not only the Liberal Democrats are saying as much. There can be no doubt whatever that the overwhelming majority of staff are opposed to the proposal, as are the pilots, and 116 Labour Members signed an early-day motion in the previous Session confirming that they, too, were opposed or wanted other options to be considered.
      What is not in doubt is the need for new infrastructure. As we know, demands on air services are growing and new technology is required. The issue is not whether new technology is needed, but how it should be funded. We have had ample opportunity in the past few weeks to debate the PPP for the tube. I do not intend to dwell on that, but it is clear from the Chancellor's recent pronouncements—one made as recently as yesterday—that his obsession with PPPs is driving this ill-conceived part-privatisation. He has ignored the alternative funding proposals made by us and many others.
      Recommendation (g) of the report notes the nervousness of the general aviation or amateur flying community over the NATS sell-off. The Popular Flying Association is concerned that
      "if NATS becomes a company that has shareholders and which will seek to maximise its profits and pay a return to its shareholders, it will be seeking to find income from any source it can."
      The report further states:
      "The implications for safety would be that either General Aviation pilots would be compressed into a smaller area or General Aviation activities would be compressed into a smaller area, or General Aviation pilots would continue to use the same altitudes as previously, straying into the same airspace as commercial aircraft."
      There is concern from other sources.
      Few people believe that privatisation, partial or otherwise, is a good idea. Happily, there are alternatives. The service does not need to be part-privatised. Another report by the Select Committee proposed alternatives, not least the successful Canadian model under which funding from private bonds has been found. We think that the Government should be considering that model. The safety of air travellers is paramount and for that reason I extend an offer of assistance to the Minister. If he chooses to abandon the PPP and opts instead for a public corporation model for NATS, he will receive the active support of Liberal Democrat Members in developing those proposals. We would help to facilitate the passage of any such plans through the House.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: That is an offer we cannot refuse.
      Mr. Brake: Exactly. I thank the hon. Lady for her sedentary intervention.

      435
      The Government's proposed PPP for NATS is the key concern in relation to aviation safety, but not the only one, and I shall raise a number of issues. I am particularly concerned about the implications of code sharing for safety standards and it raises issues similar to those that have already been mentioned in respect of virtual airlines. As the Minister will know, Delta Airlines had a code-sharing arrangement with Korean Airlines, which has been abrogated. I understand that the United States Department of Transportation is drafting safety guidelines that will apply to alliances between United States and foreign operators. Perhaps he will answer this question: when a UK airline enters a code-sharing arrangement with a foreign airline, what safety requirements are placed on the foreign operator and are the Government satisfied that the safety regulation group will be able to oversee such airlines to a sufficiently high standard?
      Liberal Members believe that the Select Committee's recommendation that a safety regulation group should be incorporated into an independent transport safety authority requires detailed consideration. It could be a means of ensuring that best practice in one transport industry is adopted by another. I am conscious that the Minister will not want to pre-empt the Davis report findings, but can he give a commitment that the Government will tell the House how they intend to proceed as soon as they receive those findings? He might be in a position to make a statement on what progress may have been made by their review of transport safety matters.
      As other hon. Members have said, if any issue warrants consideration at European level it is air safety. It is little comfort to British travellers that the British aviation industry has an excellent safety record. If they are landing in another country, our good standards may not ensure safe arrival at their destination. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will ensure that UK safety standards will not be compromised and that they will work positively with European partners to increase safety standards in Europe so that there is no dumbing down or lowest common denominator safety standard, a prospect referred to by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)?
      I represent a Greater London constituency so I have concerns about Heathrow airport. They have been referred to, particularly in relation to Malaysia Airlines aircraft landing when low on fuel. Our report recommends that the Government re-examine whether such aircraft should be allowed to approach Heathrow over central London. Their response was rather brief and seemed to suggest that they had not taken that recommendation on board. Can the Minister enlarge on their response and tell the House whether they have indeed re-examined the matter?
      I am also a little perplexed by the Government's response to recommendation (1) of the report, which concerns foreign aircraft inspections. The report recommends a greater number of ramp checks—I note that they have taken that on board—and the introduction of random checks. The Committee stated that other European countries carry out such checks, but the Government responded by saying that the UK would contravene its Chicago convention obligations by introducing such a practice. On that specific and important point, perhaps the Minister will explain whether there is a contradiction and whether European countries are perhaps breaking their obligations.
      436
      Staff and training represent a further concern, and other hon. Members have referred to them. I want the Minister to respond to a specific question: will he today report to the House any interim findings of the interdepartmental working group, which was set up on 10 August, and can he give us a date for the delivery of the report?
      The final concern to which I shall refer is the millennium, which is only a couple of weeks away. Will the Minister take perhaps the final opportunity to say whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or Action 2000 will be issuing last-minute instructions to travellers that will perhaps list airlines about which there are no safety concerns whatever, as well as those about which there remain safety concerns over the millennium bug?
      Safety worries relating to the aviation industry are very real, and are likely to increase. I have asked the Minister a number of specific questions; I hope that he will be able to respond to them today, or, failing that, that he will write to me in the near future. The key concern is still the part-privatisation of national air traffic services. I do not believe that there is any appetite for that in the House, in the aviation industry or in the country. The sooner the Government scrap it, the sooner the new Swanwick centre will be up and running, and the sooner we shall be able to build on our excellent safety record.
      Finally, I must issue a challenge to the Minister. Can he put his hand on his heart and say that the Government are selling 51 per cent. of air traffic control because that will improve—not just maintain—safety standards?
      Mr. Mullin: Yes.
      Mr. Brake: The Minister says that he can do that. In his answer to a parliamentary question from me, he listed the arguments for public-private partnership, but the need to improve safety did not feature. He has another opportunity now.
      The Minister knows—as, I think, do his Back Benchers—that this is really about money. It is about a smash-and-grab raid by the Treasury. Whether the Chancellor will have £350 million or £15 million in his war chest in return for the sale of NATS, I do not believe that the Minister£either in the Government's response, or here today—will be able to demonstrate that the sale is needed because it is the only way of improving safety in air traffic control. The Government must abandon their plans to privatise air traffic control: that is the one transport U-turn that everyone would welcome.
      3.2 pm
      Mr. George Stevenson: So far, all who have spoken have done two things. First, they have said how important and detailed the report is, and drawn attention to the time and trouble expended by the Committee and everyone else involved, including witnesses. Secondly, they have echoed a view expressed throughout the report, and stressed the high quality of the United Kingdom's aviation safety record. I do not think that that can be repeated too often.
      As others have briefly pointed out, the background is an enormous growth in air traffic services. I am told that, in 1989, some 92 million passengers passed through British airports, and that 159 million did so in 1998. That represents an average annual growth of about 8 per cent.,

      437
      and none of the evidence received by our Committee suggests that the same rate of growth is unlikely to continue. In many respects, there is a good tale to tell—a tale of which we should be proud. As the report and its recommendations suggest, the challenge is this: how can we at least maintain our record, and, if possible, improve it?
      I share the disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the Government's response to a report that issues the challenge to which I have referred, and makes detailed, well-researched, specific recommendations on how it can be met. I want to highlight three points made in the report. The first relates to the safety regulation group, which is part of the Civil Aviation Authority. The report draws attention to a particular aspect of the group's vital activities. Our evidence suggested that, in recent years, it had taken a "hands-on" approach to aviation safety. That means that airlines and operators produce their safety plans and safety operations, and the safety regulation group considers them to establish whether they are adequate.
      It could, I suppose, be argued that the process has worked. By definition, we would not have such a good safety record if it had not. So what is the problem? First, it clearly represents a move towards a self-regulatory regime, and that is not the purpose for which the safety regulation group was originally established. Secondly, we should consider the enormous growth in the industry that has already taken place, and the enormous growth that will take place in the future. We should also consider anxieties that have been expressed about virtual airlines. I think I am right in saying that the evidence that we received from the safety regulation group suggested that it was difficult to monitor the activities and safety standards of virtual airlines, because of their fragmented nature.
      Given those and many other problems, we must consider seriously whether the hands-off embryonic self-regulatory approach that the safety regulation group seems to have developed over recent years is one on which we can depend for the future. I would feel rather more comfortable if we could be assured that the Government would engage in discussions with the CAA and the safety regulation group to ensure that the right balance was achieved. I would like to be sure that, as the process continues, we shall not lose sight of the concept that the safety regulation group should set standards and make inspections to ensure that they are applied, rather than simply judging whether the operators' plans are adequate. 1 think it essential for my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider his response to the report's recommendation about the safety regulation group. I feel that it is complacent, and misses the important point that the report was trying to make.
      I am also concerned about the relationship between the air accidents investigation branch, the CAA, the safety regulation group and the Government. By definition, the reports of the air accidents investigation branch follow accidents, some of which are tragic; they are therefore that much more important, in terms of the conclusions reached by the branch, and the action that it recommends the CAA and the Government to take to ensure that lessons are learned and such accidents do not occur
      438
      again. The evidence we received suggested that recommendations made by the branch some years ago had still not been implemented.
      We were worried about the cause of some tragic air accidents, including the infamous Boeing 737 accident, which resulted in many lost lives. Recommendations were made. I understand that there is still uncertainty about the cause and the recommendations; any recommendations that were made have not been implemented. There are other examples of that. Therefore, it is crucial that the issue of CAA involvement in air accidents investigation branch reports and recommendations, and the Government ensuring that the recommendations are acted on, is revisited urgently.
      There is some merit in the CAA ensuring—as it does at the moment—that air accidents investigation branch recommendations and reports are made public, but the branch itself should perhaps publish its recommendations. In addition, as a matter of urgency, the Government should ensure that there is minimal delay in branch reports being made public and brought to the attention of Government, and that recommendations are implemented.
      The final area to which I shall refer—in many ways, it is crucial to the debate about the future of air safety—is our relationship with European organisations, a matter that has been touched on by other hon. Members.
      At the moment, we have the Joint Aviation Authority, which has been described as a club. Twenty-seven or 28 European nations get together, discuss issues and try to come to some conclusions. As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) rightly said, it goes at the pace of the slowest camel in the train. We took evidence that clearly showed that three, four or five years may pass before conclusions are reached.
      I know that the Government are worried about that. I suspect that it is one of the reasons why the Minister will say that the Government are in favour of developing the European profile, but we must make the decision making quicker and more efficient. We cannot tolerate inordinate delay in coming to decisions.
      When we questioned the safety regulation group on the whole relationship between safety standards and regulations in the UK and what may happen in Europe, we were given assurances that, if there were inordinate delay and the JAA took decisions that reduced UK standards, the group would not hesitate to implement, or to improve, UK standards. That was reassuring, but the proposed European air safety authority is a different animal altogether. The JAA has no legal standing. EASA will be a legal entity. Presumably, therefore, its decisions will have the force of law.
      If the safety regulation group is determined to ensure that safety standards in this country are not compromised as a result of the changed European profile, two things will be important. First, when and if EASA is set up as a legal entity and the safety regulation group does not agree fundamentally with a decision, the group will have two options. It can act illegally by doing something else and, as a result, begin to undermine EASA's credibility. We cannot have it both ways.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: There is another alternative. The group can be ordered to maintain the compromise standard that is acceptable throughout Europe.
      Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It means that I do not have to detain the House with the second option. It is an important point.

      439
      The report makes it as clear as we could possibly make it that, if air safety standards in the UK are to be maintained and improved, we cannot tolerate international organisations, with perhaps the best will in the world, taking decisions that we are legally bound to apply, but that dilute those safety standards. We think—the report is clear about it—that the Government should be extremely careful and seek the most concrete assurances before they sign up to EASA.
      I make two more quick points in relation to that. First, evidence to the Committee, which came from professionals in the industry, not from politicians, was clear. There is a north-south divide in Europe in relation to safety standards. Generally speaking, the north of Europe has much higher standards than southern Europe.
      That leads to my second point. For my sins, I spent 10 years in the European Parliament, so I know a little about how the place works. We have heard the term "negotiation". People say, "Do not worry, we shall negotiate from a position of strength. We shall ensure that our interests are protected," and so on. That is fine. I differ from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. There is a role to play in international co-ordination and co-operation on air transport. We have to be careful about falling into the trap of taking a little Englander view. By definition, that is the case. It is nonsense to argue differently.
      Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misquoting me. I went to some lengths to say that co-operation was important. We must co-operate with our European partners, but federal integration of the type that is proposed under some of the new bodies is exactly what we do not want.
      Mr. Stevenson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that he used the word "federal." I do not think that that word is in the report, but it implies that there is some other political motive behind his point. Nevertheless, the point is well taken.
      Much can be done through negotiation, but we must never forget that EASA will be subject to qualified majority vote. It will not be a matter of us saying that we will defend our standards when we are outvoted by other people who think that those standards are either not appropriate, or too burdensome. It is an important point.
      The negotiation that will go on will be fine in many respects. I have no doubt about that, but we are concerned about the notion that the UK's high safety standards are negotiable. There is a strong argument that, in the public interest, and in the interests of the industry, those high safety standards are, by definition, non-negotiable. Therefore, there is an issue for the Government to consider. If we are entering negotiations, will it be right that our high standards should be subject to such negotiation, with all the potential pitfalls that could ensue?
      This is a good and detailed report. It makes some important recommendations. I remain somewhat disappointed about the Government's response, which in some cases is complacent and verges on the sanguine. I hope that, as a result of the debate—I shall listen to the Minister with great interest—we have been able to persuade him and the Government that the report should be taken far more seriously than appears to be the case.
      3.20 pm
      Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting his part of the world for the first time, with a Joint Committee on a Special Procedure.
      Partly because my husband works for an international airline, and is therefore a frequent traveller, I believe that aviation safety is an extremely important issue. I place great emphasis on his safety, as I do on that of others who work for his company and of everyone who travels by air.
      I welcome the Select Committee report. I am also honoured to serve on the Transport Sub-Committee under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I joined the Committee two weeks before publication of the report—it therefore constituted my first official involvement with the Committee—and there has been a learning curve.
      I join the hon. Lady in regretting the rather disappointing, even poor, Government response to the report, and the four-month delay in drafting that response. I agree with the hon. Lady that we must avoid complacency in the aviation industry. The United Kingdom has one of the safest aviation industries in the world, and successive United Kingdom Governments have ensured that we have made some of the world's greatest investments in the industry, both in airport air traffic control and in airlines.
      I pay tribute to those who work in the airlines, in the airports and in related industries—such as the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services—who have worked consistently towards achieving extremely high safety levels in the United Kingdom aviation industry. We have been able to achieve those high safety levels because of the contributions made by our pilots, engineers and air traffic controllers.
      Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that, on returning to the United Kingdom and taking my seat in this place, I would have the pleasure of serving with him. I do not think that, 15 years ago, either of us realised that we would again end up at the same place at the same time.
      In playing its current role, the Joint Aviation Authority is handicapped by not having legal authority to impose agreed standards. I therefore view establishment of the European Aviation Safety Authority more positively than some other hon. Members may do.
      The problem is one not only of setting European air safety standards, but of implementing agreed standards. As the Government's response notes, the Civil Aviation Authority has always played, and—rightly—will continue to play, a leading role in developing European standards in the Joint Aviation Authority.
      Accident rates in Europe are among the world's lowest, and—as the Government's response states categorically—there is no evidence that harmonised safety standards have reduced United Kingdom safety levels.
      I should like to make a confession: as a rapporteur of the Transport Committee of the European Parliament, I was involved in the creation of the European Aviation Safety Authority. The fact that any single organisation would lack teeth in implementing safety standards was the precise issue leading to the creation of the pan-European Aviation Safety Authority. Therefore, our objectives in

      441
      establishing the authority do not warrant the suspicions expressed today by some hon. Members. As the Government's response explained—I rarely agree with the Government's memorandums, and am therefore slightly alarmed to agree with their response to this report—the objective is to give EASA legal powers to impose the standards that it adopts.
      The Civil Aviation Authority has assiduously imposed the standards set in the United Kingdom, and we must ensure that all our European partners aspire to equally high standards. Third-country carriers seeking to use European Union airports and air space also must match those high standards. Therefore, EASA can only add to the greater collective value of air safety across Europe.
      Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the important thing is that all airlines and aircraft that use British air space and British airports should conform to the highest possible standards—which are those established by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is answerable to this place? The standards applying in Paris, Brussels or Hamburg are a matter for the national Governments of those places, not for this place.
      Miss McIntosh: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but simply say—I realise that it is a radical view to take on either side of the House—that, although we pride ourselves on our high safety standards, we should not accept that passengers travelling on other European carriers, or on international carriers seeking to land in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe, should have lesser safety standards.
      An even more radical suggestion was made in the European Parliament: that, to ensure parliamentary accountability, a Member of the European Parliament should be on EASA's board, and that there should be annual reports from EASA to the European Parliament. The Minister, and perhaps other hon. Members, might like to comment on those suggestions.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: As the hon. Lady is informed on the aviation industry, she will know that the type of airlines that we are talking about already comply with international standards, and that, almost without exception, those airlines support the International Civil Aviation Organisation, in which there are agreed common standards. Therefore, the issue is not one of not accepting international standards. Unfortunately, the history of our involvement in European institutions shows that, rather than harmonising upwards, we frequently harmonise downwards.
      Miss McIntoshMy experience is perhaps more positive than the hon. Lady's. I shall return in a moment to the issue of third-country carriers. As she will remember, the Committee considered that issue—which I hope the Minister will address in his reply.
      I welcome the Government's commitment to perform more ramp checks on foreign aircraft; their response commits them to performing 200 ramp checks annually. Although I appreciate that the Government are able to act only in response to specific concerns, I regret that random checks are deemed not to be compatible with our
      442
      obligations under the Chicago convention. I believe that only with random checks and the element of surprise will we be able to impose the highest possible standard of inspections.
      I invite the Minister to take this opportunity to update the House on the point just made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, on arrangements to travel into the United Kingdom from certain third countries at the millennium—which is only two weeks away. We should certainly like to send a positive message of safety to all those who use that type of transportation service over the holidays, and this debate might provide the Minister with an opportune moment to update us on the issue. I believe that officials in his Department said that the permits of four countries might be lifted at the millennium, which is fast approaching.
      I share the concern expressed by the Select Committee, in its report, and by people outside the House, of a potential pilot shortage. United Kingdom safety standards cannot be compromised, and we should have sufficient pride in our civil aviation industry to attract a steady stream of recruits.
      I have similar concerns about the recruitment and training of engineers and air traffic controllers. I hope that the Minister will deal in his reply with those concerns, as expressed in the Select Committee report.
      During my time in the European Parliament, as Member of the European Parliament for Essex North and Suffolk South, I had the privilege of representing Stanstead airport. I therefore appreciate that, in many areas surrounding airports—such as, particularly, north Essex and south Suffolk, where air traffic and approach congestion are increasing—local people are increasingly concerned about stacking over airports at peak times. I should like the Government to address that, because it is difficult for busy airports to balance their development with the concerns of those who live nearby.
      The cost of smoke hoods and the training of passengers in their use are also important issues. Many passengers do not fly regularly or do not use the same type of aircraft every time. The Government response covered the point adequately. It said:
      "Earlier research indicated that the delays in evacuation caused by untrained passengers trying to don smokehoods would cause a greater loss of life from fire than the number saved by reduced inhalation of toxic fumes."
      I do not want to be alarmist, but we have to balance safety against the fact that many domestic and European internal flights last less than 40 or 50 minutes. In many cases, there is not enough time to train passengers—including me; I am not always an ideal passenger—to use the complicated smoke hoods. The cost of fitting smoke hoods for every passenger could put low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet and possibly also Go and Buzz out of operation.
      We would all like air rage to be addressed, particularly by discouraging potentially disruptive passengers. There is the growing problem of passengers who refuse to switch off their mobile phones and laptop computers. It is incumbent on the Government to impress on such passengers that those are serious offences that could be life threatening to a plane load of passengers. Those offences must be tackled seriously and stiff penalties must be imposed.
      My final point is about military aircraft using uncontrolled airspace. That is of particular concern to me, because my constituency covers RAF Leeming,

      443
      RAF Linton and Dishforth. I note that the Government intend to install a collision warning system for the ground attack Tornado GR4 aircraft. I should like a commitment from the Minister that the same system will be extended to the Eurofighter when it comes into operation in 2002, which will use bases such as RAF Leeming.
      3.33 pm
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: I join the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in congratulating our air traffic controllers. We are grateful for the astonishing job that they do. This country has an enviable air safety record at the moment. However, I should like to address the factors behind my constituents' genuine concerns about air safety. We are constantly reminded of the issue in Richmond Park.
      After the Southall rail crash, when safety was questioned, Mr. Justice Scott Baker said:
      "There may be a conflict between profit and safety."
      Many comments and comparisons have been made since then about the effects of privatisation on safety factors. Despite assurances about responsibility for safety being separated from the privatised NATS, people are very worried. That is a prime concern for my constituency, which lies under the two approach flight paths to Heathrow. We cannot forget about air safety. When aircraft pass over the area every one or two minutes during the day—despite runway alternation, thousands of people are affected every day and every night—conversations stop, teachers stop teaching and at night sleepers awake. There is a constant reminder of what might happen.
      We have heard about aircraft flying with near-empty tanks. I got an unsatisfactory response when I questioned the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about that after one incident. I was told that it was not this country's responsibility. That is extraordinary, when the aircraft are flying over our people.
      We also hear about near misses in the sky. We are reassured that there are many more aeroplanes in the sky now but that the number of near misses has not risen in proportion, but they are certainly well publicised. People are very conscious of them and the number is rising each year, even if the proportion is not. The Minister shakes his head, but paragraph 21 of the Select Committee's report shows how numbers have risen.
      Over the past 12 months, we have had some frightening attacks from the air in my constituency. In December last year, the body of a boy fell into a—thankfully derelict—site in Mortlake from an Air India flight. The boy had stowed away in the wheel housing and fell on a gas works next to a school. The Civil Aviation Authority carried out a full investigation after the inquest, but the only result was that the airline was asked to make tighter checks before its planes took off. That is not much comfort to my constituents when they remember that bodies have fallen out of the air.
      On 12 November this year, a block of brownish ice fell through the roof of the school that was missed by the body 12 months ago. I shall not use unparliamentary language to describe what that brown ice really was, but the airline described it as
      "frozen effluent created by seepage through the aircraft structures."
      Whatever it was, it was very nasty. Luckily, it came through the roof of the school and not into the playground where the children were playing. The CAA promised
      444
      another full investigation, but we have not heard any more about it. I was told on the telephone only two days ago that one of my constituents, Mr. Malcolm Welchman, was narrowly missed when walking along the pavement by another block of brown ice falling out of the sky. The incident has been reported to the CAA, which is trying to track the aircraft from which it came.
      The situation is worrying. The Minister might investigate and name the airlines involved in such outrages. Why are such aircraft that come in to land at our airports not severely fined? Money from those fines should go on environmental projects or further safety measures. Eventually, somebody will be seriously injured.
      The number of aircraft coming in over my constituency is another subject of concern. In 1993, the British Airports Authority forecast that, if terminal 5 went ahead, Heathrow would be able to take 420,000 air traffic movements every year. By 1996, there were 423,000 air traffic movements.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the hon. Lady accept that the number of aircraft movements is not limited solely by terminal capacity, but—much more importantly—by runway capacity? It is an extraordinary achievement of British airports to have produced so many more movements with the same amount of runway. Terminal buildings are not the problem.
      Dr. Tonge: That point is made to me often. The danger is that, because we were promised no further development at Heathrow after terminal 4 and we now face the prospect of terminal 5, we know also that it will not be long before there could be a third runway. That is one of the problems for my constituents—promises and forecasts never come true, and are always overturned by events.
      By 1997, the number of air traffic movements had increased. In 1998-99, we are already seeing in the region of 425,000 to 430,000 air traffic movements a year. Even without the new terminal or further development at Heathrow, estimates are already way above predictions. It is no wonder my constituents do not believe a word that BAA says. It is all lies to them.
      My constituents do not believe very much of what is told them by the Government either when it comes to air safety and what will happen in and around Heathrow. We know that BAA will go on increasing air traffic movements with or without terminal 5. Will air traffic control cope in the future? Has that been considered? Will a privatised industry cope? Will it all have to cope on a shoestring until we start having collisions and crashes and the ensuing inquiries come up with the same remarks as were made after the Southall train disaster?
      I cannot resist one last point. Can the Minister tell me when the inspector's report after the inquiry into terminal 5 will be published? Will the Government accept all the report's recommendations when it is published?
      3.42 pm
      Mr. Tony McWalter: It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak, as I am not a member of the august Select Committee. However, the nub of the issue is something on which I have a little expertise. During this year, I have been privileged to be a member of the parliamentary armed forces scheme. As a result,

      445
      I have witnessed at first hand many of the air traffic control systems around various forces and places in this country. In addition, I was, for a time, a director of computing in a university, and I wish to talk explicitly about the information technology side of the debate.
      By instinct, I am strongly in favour of keeping the air traffic control system within the public sector. One feels strongly about it because its record and professionalism have been so good. People have referred a great deal to the achievements of air traffic controllers. Having witnessed them at first hand, I have to say that I am somewhat worried about the quality of the instruments that they need to use to carry out their job.
      It is true that air traffic controllers have fantastic expertise and ability to cope, but increasing air traffic year on year means that their task gets more and more difficult, and the ancient instruments that they use to monitor air traffic movements become more and more strained.
      The Government are right to be concerned about trying to find a way forward that will meet that severe challenge. Even if we have a system that has been incredibly safe for 20 years, if we keep increasing the capacity, there comes a point at which it will no longer be safe.
      With a database that has an order of complexity of 100, some people think that one can perform much the same operations to cover a database with an order of complexity of 120 or 200. However, there comes a point at which the extra demands being made require one completely to redesign that database, and to think again about how one copes with the extra pressures being put on it. That is true even in elementary arithmetic. Perhaps most of us can multiply two double-digit numbers, but most will find it difficult to multiply two quadruple-digit numbers. That small increased complexity taxes us to our limits.
      In computing terms, that is what is happening with air traffic control. We are faced with the need for a radically new system. The Liberal Democrats say that there is a strong need for new infrastructure. I am not worried about that so much as the expertise available to us in IT to cope with the transition. Change we must, and all those locked into the current system—be they air traffic controllers or pilots—are worried about the change. They know how complicated it has become; they know how big Topsy has grown.
      Yet we must find a way of managing that change while keeping the outstanding safety with which we have managed change over the past couple of decades. Doing that will require new resources. I am old-fashioned enough to think that, if that were the only issue, air traffic control should remain in the public sector and we should find those resources. However, I am much more worried about the problem of expertise.
      North of the border, people talked this week about the number of civil servants with extreme expertise in fisheries, but little expertise in IT. That is also true south of the border, and in the British Isles in general. The public sector in general lacks the IT expertise that is needed to make the transition. That is due partly to history, partly to the way in which we recruit civil servants, and partly to pay rates. In my constituency—a high-tech constituency—people get £50,000, £60,000 or £100,000 a year for doing such jobs. It would be difficult
      446
      to earn that much in any job in the public sector. Such people accordingly migrate towards the Microsofts and IBMs of the private sector.
      As the expertise is increasingly in the private sector, it is right that, whatever else happens in the transition, the Government should lock themselves on to that expertise and try to find a way of marrying the professionalism, commitment and dedication of people such as our air traffic controllers to the extraordinary expertise that will be needed in IT to manage the revolution effectively.
      That is why, despite the fact that a number of my esteemed colleagues signed an early-day motion in the previous Session lamenting the Government's stance on the matter, I found myself unable to sign it. I think that something like a public-private partnership, using the ideas about which I have talked, is needed. That does not mean privatisation, losing control or marginalising the commitment to public service that has rightly characterised the service for so long. The expertise will help us to achieve the results that we seek. We should also give recognition to the employees. The resulting structure would allow us to manage the difficult and dangerous transition in the most effective way possible.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: The hazard of that argument is that the whole Swanwick exercise has been undertaken by private sector companies from the beginning. If there was a problem, it was not with the expertise in the civil service but with the project management and the computer companies. The civil service already has an extremely useful unit in Norwich, with enormous computer expertise, that is not used by Departments.
      Mr. McWalter: That argument is not compelling because the expertise held in the private sector does not always make it through into public contracts. Under the previous Government, a computer company—I will not name it, although I know that I can do so here—sold inferior products to the public sector and did not provide adequate support. In my view, that was because there was insufficient expertise in the civil service to secure the right contracts to hold the private companies accountable.
      There are clearly different ways of slicing the top off that egg, but, in my view, the failures show the lack of expertise in the public sector. I am saying not that the whole public sector has a lamentable lack of expertise in information technology—that would not be true—but that the kind of expertise needed to make the transition effective needs to be tapped into in an appropriate way. I hope that, between us, we can sort out the arguments to the benefit of air safety, air passengers and our transport system.
      3.52 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Like the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), I am not a member of the Select Committee, but I am delighted to be able to contribute to our debate and to have heard the very interesting contributions that have been made. I apologise to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for not having been here for her speech; I was engaged at another institution on the Strand. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) said: she has brought great distinction to her chairmanship.

      447
      I declare more than a passing interest, as I have been an aviator for the best part of 33 years—I held a pilot's licence before I held a licence to drive a motor car—and I have the privilege of representing Farnborough, which is the birthplace of British aviation. In Farnborough, we have the aerodrome—the site of the first manned flight in the United Kingdom, when Samuel Cody took off on 16 October 1908—the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency headquarters, British Aerospace headquarters and the air accidents investigation branch.
      I want to single out the air accidents investigation branch and its head, Ken Smart, for the phenomenal work that is done there. I am sure that members of the Committee will be aware of it, but I am not sure how many members of the public appreciate the fantastic resource of skill and forensic science that we have in the AAIB. 1 have seen the remains of the Lockerbie PanAm 747 there. Mr. Smart showed me how the branch had determined how that aeroplane met its fate. The fact that it could do that is a tribute to the way in which it works.
      There are two branches: the engineers, who are all pilots, and the pilots, who are all engineers. They cross-fertilise in a very impressive operation. To a pilot, the institution is a little grim, because it is something of a morgue, with the remains of crashed aeroplanes; but I pay tribute to it none the less.
      I echo what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said about the high aviation safety standards that we enjoy. There has been universal recognition in this debate that the United Kingdom is extremely well served in that respect. We are an air-minded country and a world leader in many aspects of aviation, and it should come as no surprise to the House or the wider public that we have cause to be proud of our air safety record.
      The air traffic controllers, especially in the London airports region, have performed their task with immense skill, despite the huge increase in traffic. I sought to make that point to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). The House debated 10 years ago whether Heathrow should have its number of traffic movements raised to 275,000 and whether it was possible to move any more traffic there. We were told that it was not. In fact—her constituents are right to be concerned about it—there has been a 30 to 40 per cent. increase, which is again a tribute to the skills of the air traffic controllers.
      The hon. Lady talked about the number of reported airproxes—they used to be called near misses, but we now have an airprox board. In 1998, the number of risk-bearing airprox incidents involving public transport flights per 100,000 flying hours was 1.2, compared with 2.37 in 1997 and 2.87 in 1996. That suggests that there has been an actual reduction, not simply a proportional reduction.
      Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman is comparing one year with a trend that was otherwise going up.
      Mr. Howarth: I freely confess that I was using only the figures for the past three years, and I do not suggest that we should be complacent. There is certainly no room for complacency. We continue to enjoy high standards of air safety only because there is no complacency. Heaven forbid that there should be any in the House. It is vital that anyone with any interest in aviation should recognise that the number 1, 2 and 3 priorities are safety, safety and safety.
      448
      We should none the less take encouragement from the picture that the figures give us of the state of play at the moment. In fairness, we should not stir up unnecessary concerns among the public, especially those who live near airports. The figures show that the situation is not getting worse.
      Dr. Tonge: We need some clarification. The proportion of near misses to flights has been going down, which is excellent, but there has still been an overall increase in the number of near misses per year. That is what worries my constituents.
      Mr. Howarth: I was seeking to show that there cannot have been an actual increase in the number. A reduction to 1.2 from 2.37 per 100,000 flying hours in 1997 suggests that the number has halved, and I am not sure that the number of flying hours will have gone up; but let us leave that point now.
      The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made an interesting point. I had the opportunity last year of flying on the Civil Aviation Authority's BAC 1-11 development aeroplane. Incidentally, I take the opportunity of this debate to say to Sir Malcolm Field that I hope that he retains that aeroplane in the CAA's control, because it does valuable work. I saw an exciting new development in operation on the aeroplane that would enable the pilot to use a rollerball—of the type with which we are all familiar from computers—to change the track on his navigational display, either because of bad weather or for another reason, and to press a button to transmit the new track to the air traffic controllers. Using the software, they could then establish whether the track were safe or conflicted with other traffic. If the track were safe, they could immediately authorise the pilot to adopt the new track. He would then press a button and the new track would be fed into the autopilot and the aeroplane would fly safely. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead may be reassured on that point.
      I represent Farnborough as part of my constituency, and concerns have rightly been expressed to me about the proposals for new developments there, following the sale of the airfield by the Ministry of Defence to a company called TAG. Several years ago, the previous Government suggested that Farnborough should be the main business and general aviation airfield for London and the south-east of England, a decision that this Government also supported. I, too, endorse that decision, although my constituents are concerned about the number of movements, and safety is an important factor to them. I hope that the Minister will be able to assist Rushmore borough council in coming to an agreement on the planning application by TAG that will enable the airfield to continue to operate and, therefore, to continue to be the home of the world-famous Farnborough international air show.
      The Committee made some important points about general aviation. I shall not rehearse the debate that we had recently on the air navigation order, in which the Minister mounted a stout defence against my concerns about general aviation. Paragraph 54 of the Committee's report states:
      "We recommend that the Government should take steps to ensure that access to training and practice for General Aviation pilots is not unduly limited, either by cost or by planning constraints. We believe

      449
      that all pilots should be given incentives to undergo training and, accordingly, recommend that VAT should not be charged for appropriate training courses."
      I strongly endorse that recommendation and urge the Minister to adopt it. There is no doubt, as the Popular Flying Association has made clear, that the more pilots fly, the safer they are likely to be. The higher the cost of private flying is driven, the less likely people will be to keep their licences current—hence the more dangerous they become when they fly. Perhaps the Minister could also persuade the Chancellor to remove the tax on Avgas fuel, which is one of the high-cost elements of private flying.
      The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead made a good point about the privatisation of NATS, and I agree with him. I have constituents who are air traffic controllers and I know that they have concerns. Safety is of course of paramount importance, but the experience of privatisation of BA and the BAA has not resulted in any diminution in safety. The PPP proposed for NATS is also unlikely to reduce air safety. I have spoken to Bill Semple and visited Swanwick and the London air traffic control centre at West Drayton, and I cannot believe that the professional people I met would do anything other than put safety at the top of their priorities.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks for the Opposition on transport, made an important speech recently on the issue of Eurocontrol. I am concerned that the European Union is seeking a seat on the Eurocontrol board, because it is made up of sovereign nations and I suspect that the EU will simply supplant the individual nation states.
      I am also concerned about the possible consequences for slot allocation in this country and for our negotiations with the United States of America about transatlantic access to gateway points. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South was right to point out the dangers of qualified majority voting if it were to be applied to the proposed new European aviation safety authority. Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), have expressed concerns about that proposal; I echo them and hope that the Minister will take them into account.
      4.6 pm
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall be succinct, because we want to hear from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. As a non-member of the Committee, I wish to thank all my parliamentary colleagues who spend a lot of time on Select Committees and do valuable work on our behalf. I thank the Chairman and the members of the Committee.
      I wish to restate the direct question put by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), because it bears repetition. How will integration with military flights be achieved under the Government's proposals? There may be a very good answer, but the fact remains that, not so many days ago, a very ugly incident occurred over Edinburgh airport, when a low-flying military aircraft on its approach suddenly had to gain flight because a bird apparently got into one of its engines. That created a situation that posed definite danger to a British Midland
      450
      passenger aircraft. I contacted the Ministry of Defence to ask it for the details, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do the same and answer, by letter or in his speech in reply to the debate if possible, the question about integration with military flying.
      We all reflect our pasts, and part of my past was being seconded to P&O and the British India Steam Navigation Company. It was an absolute rule for anybody working on a ship that one obeyed the captain. Therefore, I believe that the pilots have a special position on all the proposals. Many Scottish Members fly every week to be here and some of us have taken the trouble to talk to the pilots in whose hands we and our fellow passengers place ourselves. On 13 occasions out of 14 recently—the other time the pilot was understandably busy with training—I have asked the pilots what they think of the proposals. I have asked whether they support Chris Darke and the British Air Line Pilots Association, or whether it is an instance of a professional association arguing a case. I can faithfully report to the House that every one of those pilots, with varying degrees of vehemence, said that they did not like the proposals as they understood them.
      It may be that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has a good case, and I am not ill-disposed towards him because he, the Chairman of the Committee and I were all part of the bureau of the Socialist group of the European Parliament some 21 years ago. I therefore have great good will towards my right hon. Friend, but we are entitled to ask before we pledge support for the proposals how it is that the Government have been unable to persuade the pilots. The pilots make the precise point that it is all right to fly into busy airports such as Edinburgh and Glasgow, but that it is an entirely different matter to fly into the world's fourth busiest airport, Gatwick, or the world's busiest airport, Heathrow. They say that they want to be sure that there is unified control. If the Government fail to persuade the pilots on this matter, I fear that they will have to do without my vote.
      4.10 pm
      Mr. Robert SymsWe have had a good debate and the Select Committee should be congratulated on the work that it has done on the report, which covers a subject that is of growing importance to all our constituents. I particularly thank my hon. Friends for their contributions to the debate; my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) made some very goods points as did my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), with whom I slightly disagree over some issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is a pilot and represents a constituency with strong aviation interests and he always makes good points in the Chamber.
      Many Labour Back Benchers also made sensible and measured proposals. When the House debates a Select Committee or a factual report on a matter that is of such concern to our constituents, it is sometimes at its best. I hope that the Minister will reply to many of the good and telling questions that Labour Members asked.
      As was said earlier, the number of passengers passing through British airspace has increased from 93.2 million in 1988 to 159 million in 1998. In the same period, the number of commercial flights has increased from 1,135,264 in 1988 to 1,762,870 in 1998. That is an increase of 55.3 per cent. It is forecast that air traffic will increase by 50 per cent. over the next 15 years. The arrival of low-cost aviation has made air travel a possibility for all.

      451
      Heathrow has 98 movements per hour—that is a take-off or landing every 36.7 seconds. It is a tribute to the CAA that the tremendous increase in travel has been accompanied by improvements in safety standards. Flying in a commercial aircraft, particularly one registered in the United Kingdom, is a safe way to travel. However, the Select Committee has raised several concerns that we need to address today.
      What first concerned me was that the Committee felt that much of the oral evidence that it had received was complacent and tended to emphasise the current good safety record rather than examining the challenges ahead. It is vital that the safety culture in the aviation industry is paramount and that the Government ensure that any proposals to change the existing system are based on research.
      The safety regulation group of the CAA faces challenges both from deregulation and the arrival of low-cost airlines. I was particularly interested in the Committee's description of a virtual airline, a subject that several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson), mentioned. That is a fragmented airline, which perhaps leases aircraft and engines from outside the UK. In the past, the safety regulation group has been forced, simply through pressure of work, to pursue a less proactive role, leaving more of the checks to individual airlines. With well-known carriers, that may not be a problem but, with the arrival of new airlines, we need to ensure that they are properly supervised.
      The Committee has identified a number of problems that I shall touch on, although with such a comprehensive report, it would be unfair to Members wishing to speak if I dwelt on all of them for too long. Airprox incidents— the number of risk-bearing near misses involving public transport flights—have decreased. In 1998, there were 1.2 for every 100,000 flying hours compared with 2.07 in 1997 and 2.87 in 1996.
      Instances of overload have more than doubled. The number of periods when traffic controllers felt that volume was too great to guarantee safety was 49 in 1998–99 compared with 24 in the previous 12 months and 16 in 1996–97. National Air Traffic Services is finding handling the massive increases in air traffic increasingly difficult, with ageing equipment, under-investment and pressure from airlines to reduce delays. A senior official of NATS said earlier this year:
      "We can cope with 3 per cent. annual growth but 7 per cent. and higher is really stretching things".
      The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety has highlighted to me the conflict between safety and capacity. There are concerns about the recent reduction in the vortex rate at Heathrow from 3 to 2.5 miles and whether that rate may be eroded further. The issue was raised with the Select Committee by the Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers.
      Another key concern are developments in Europe. We are members of the JAA, which was established in 1970. It includes regulating authorities from 27 European states, including the CAA. The JAA operates as a club and its decisions are not legally binding on its members. It is fair to say that there was criticism from witnesses to the Committee about those arrangements, which clearly need improving. However, the Committee was also clearly unenthusiastic about the Government's preferred solution of developing EASA to replace it.
      452
      Conservative Members believe in the nation state and in co-operation on an international intergovernmental level. We therefore oppose EASA being turned from an international organisation into one controlled by the European Union. We also resist the proposals now emanating from Mr. Prodi and the Commission with its "15 states, one sky" policy to take over the Eurocontrol organisation. That proposal was discussed last week by Transport Ministers in Brussels. Unfortunately, the Government, with their usual craven attitude, are falling over themselves to sign up to obligations that will result in EU involvement in the control of our airspace.
      Conservatives fully support co-operation with other countries for better management of air traffic control. For many years, Britain has been a leading member of Eurocontrol—the European body that covers air traffic control in not just EU states but national regional air traffic control systems across the continent. There are huge air traffic problems in continental Europe. Other countries do not manage their systems well and cause European travellers horrendous delays. Those problems can be solved by continued co-operation rather than integration. They are not a pretext for the EU to muscle in and grab a whole new area of legal control. That is why we would have vetoed those latest moves.
      Labour supports the proposal that the EU should itself become a member of Eurocontrol. That means that the EU will not only take over member states' negotiations in Eurocontrol, but will automatically acquire the power to make law and regulations about the airspace of the member states. The EU is due to join Eurocontrol on 27 January next year and that is a massive increase in EU legal competence.
      The Government need to answer some crucial questions. What are the overwhelming reasons for Britain to give up control of our skies? What can the EU achieve for air traffic management in Europe in Eurocontrol which will not be achieved for Eurocontrol's non-EU members? If other EU members states are determined to go ahead, why should the UK not have an opt-out?
      We have the best air traffic control in Europe, if not the world. It is hard to see what Britain will gain from this arrangement. We must not fall for the line that European integration will mean that the other EU countries will change their ways and adopt ours. The common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy have surely taught us that. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South have made that point. We need services to be improved not a levelling down.
      Most important are the defence and security consequences. The EU is not a member of NATO, and many EU countries are non-NATO members. What are the defence and security implications of a non-NATO body partly controlled by non-NATO countries acquiring the supreme authority over UK airspace?
      We are in favour of co-operation. We are full and active members of Eurocontrol as an international organisation; however, we are against unnecessary expansion of EU power for its own sake. It is plain that this proposal is really about European federalism and that Labour is selling out our vital national interests.
      NATS has been the focus of the debate. Many hon. Members have expressed their concern about the Government's public-private partnership proposals. I do

      453
      not believe that safety issues will be affected by the change in status of NATS, but Government hesitation in the past two years or so may have damaged short-term investment. The Government's PPP is a convoluted compromise that has delayed the sale of NATS for the past couple of years. To quote my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the shadow Transport Minister:
      "While the Government were searching for a way to spin this privatisation in the media and the Department was missing slots in the legislative timetable, Britain's air traffic system has been starved of capital investment and has had investment plans shelved".
      Conservative Members want a simple flotation with a golden share to provide for permanent UK control.
      Another interesting point, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, concerned how little money would be raised by the sale of NATS. The explanatory note to the Transport Bill states:
      "Income from the partial sale of NATS to a strategic partner could raise in the region of £350 million. Against that, NATS has outstanding loans of around £300 million which will need to be settled … the total cost of establishing a public-private partnership … will be approximately £35 million".
      That means that only £15 million will be raised from the sale. I was interested in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, and in the Minister's intervention. I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House about how the Government will get more than the figure that they put in that explanatory note.
      If the Government are serious about a PPP, they need investment from the private sector. The Opposition caution the Minister against accepting bids from foreign companies that are wholly or partially state owned. For instance, Thompson CSF of France is 40 per cent. owned by the state.
      There is a real problem with NATS. All other air traffic control systems in the world are owned by the public sector. Many of the potential bidders for NATS, therefore, could be other states' air traffic control organisations. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to rule out the possibility that the air traffic systems of neighbouring states such as southern Ireland might be allowed to bid for a share of NATS.
      Whenever there is a debate about air safety or NATS, the subject of Swanwick comes up, and several hon. Members mentioned it today. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that the opening date for Swanwick remains spring 2002, as he said in a recent written answer.
      Several hon. Members also mentioned the delay in setting up the oceanic flight data processing centre at Prestwick. Will the Minister tell us when the contract will be signed, if it has not been signed already? What is the target date for the centre's opening?
      A recurring theme in the Select Committee report was the problem of staff shortages. Staffing and training were among the key issues in the Committee's proposals. The safety regulation group has problems filling vacancies—five of its 45 posts remain vacant—and, as is the case with almost all such organisations, it faces stiff competition from the private sector over the recruitment
      454
      of suitable staff. There is an argument that the staff of many of the bodies mentioned in the debate should enjoy better pay and conditions. That would ensure that we can maintain and keep the first-rate people needed to give confidence in air safety.
      Mention was made earlier of the air accidents investigation branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, which has also suffered from staff shortages. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that she hoped that the Minister would state that those shortages have been made good. However, a real problem of staff retention exists in those services.
      The report states that, until 15 years ago, 70 per cent. of those working as pilots or in engineering posts were ex-military. Clearly, given the way in which the world is going, the problem of filling those posts will get worse unless the Government—and the private sector—offer a lot more in terms of training to ensure that we get people of the right calibre.
      I was also interested in the Committee's plea that English be pushed as the language of the air, and made the standard for air-ground communication. In some respects, I understand other countries' opposition to that proposal, but it is an important point and I hope that the Government acknowledge it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire raised the problem of runway capacity in the south-east. The Government's response seemed to suggest that they did not consider that there was any particular problem. However, in the document entitled "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" published in July 1998, the Government said that a White Paper would be produced setting out airport policy for the next 30 years. I know that a possible factor in the delay to that White Paper has been the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) noted, it would be helpful if the Minister could give the House some idea of when we will hear the terminal 5 inquiry date, and of when we can expect a White Paper setting out a sensible airport policy for the future.
      The Government have taken on board some of the Select Committee's recommendations, but I was worried to hear the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich say that the tone and quality of the Government's response had been poor, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South described his disappointment at the way in which some of the recommendations had been received. Those two hon. Members are senior and respected figures, so it is fair to say that there has not been great joy and happiness at the Government's response. However, I know that, if the Government do not respond satisfactorily in the short term, hon. Members will come back to the House to ensure that they take the Select Committee report more seriously.
      We welcome the aviation safety report by the Select Committee. However, we remain concerned about greater EU involvement in our skies and about some of the Government's rather convoluted plans for a PPP for NATS. However, this has been a good debate, on a topic that is close to the hearts of the many of our constituents who travel far and wide. I look forward to the Minister's response.
      4.26 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): As the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said, this has been a good debate. If I may say so, we have been discussing a good report. Although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will not be deflected by flattery, I pay tribute to her long interest in these matters. As I shall probably have to repeat several times in my speech, I can assure her that we take the report's recommendations very seriously.
      It will not be possible for me to deal with all the issues raised this afternoon. There are rather a lot of them: some had only a tangential relevance to the subject but, happily, most were relevant. I shall do my best, but I shall be glad to write to hon. Members if I miss out any of the main points.
      The allegation running through the debate has been that the Government are in some way complacent about air safety. I entirely refute that. We are not content with the status quo. We do not believe that everything is perfect. I shall not even go so far as to say that our air safety arrangements are the best in the world. I shall say only that they are among the best in the world, as the House will accept.
      During my years in the House, I have heard many of our institutions—police, judges, soldiers and so on—described as the best in the world, most often by Conservative Members. That radiates an air of complacency that I have no wish to adopt, so I shall confine myself to saying that our air safety record is among the best in the world. Work goes on continuously to make sure that we maintain that record.
      One requirement to being taken seriously in this matter is to ensure that we do not react in a knee-jerk fashion to tragedies. When a tragedy happens, everyone make an instant analysis of the circumstances, and experiences a personal gut feeling about what was wrong or about what should have happened. However, the benefit of hindsight is that it often shows that initial reactions were incorrect. It is vital, therefore, when dealing with important issues of safety, to reflect maturely and undertake proper research and analysis before reaching conclusions.
      Some recommendations might even have an adverse affect on safety. For example, the use of smoke hoods was proposed soon after the Manchester accident, and subsequently. However, it has been suggested that smoke hoods could impede evacuation: if so, they would not necessarily be desirable.
      Many hon. Members have spoken about air traffic control and about the Government's plans in that respect. Other opportunities will arise to debate those matters—the next coming on Monday, so I shall make only a few general points on the matter.
      Many hon. Members have asked when we expect Swanwick to open. I can confirm that it is on target, which is more than can be said about the arrangements that we inherited. It is expected to open in spring 2002. What is most important is not to predict in advance the day or week when it will open, but to get it right. Stringent tests and training will take place between now and then to make sure that we get it right. Thus far, I am glad to say, opening is on target.
      456
      We inherited a considerable mess at Prestwick and we are doing our best to put it right. That has involved unravelling some arrangements. If ever there was a case for getting some private sector skills into project management, it is the project management at Prestwick. It is anticipated that Prestwick should be ready by the winter of 2005-06, but I hope that no one will attempt to hold me to a particular day or week. Once again it is important to get it right.
      I repeat a point that Ministers and everyone concerned with safety regulations has made at every opportunity—that aviation safety is, and will continue to be, paramount. That theme runs through all our plans for the future of air traffic control. We intend to separate, and keep separate, safety regulation from operations.
      I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe)—forgive me if I am wrong—who made a comparison with Rai1track. There is none to be made. One of the big mistakes about Rai1track is that it was left with some safety responsibilities. It is a cardinal rule of effective safety procedure that safety regulation is kept separate from operations. That happens now and will be written into our arrangements for a public-private partnership of air traffic control. Far from undermining safety, we shall enhance safety arrangements. We are in the process of talking to all interested parties, including air traffic control and pilot representatives. We are taking seriously all their suggestions—they have made several constructive suggestions—for improving safety arrangements. For example, we hope to include on the board a director who has specific responsibility for safety. That will be an improvement.
      Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way and perhaps he was going to come to this point. Can he explain why he did not include improved safety in his written answer which listed arguments for PPP? Was that simply an oversight or what?
      Mr. Mullin: With the greatest respect, that is a silly point.
      Mr. Brake: It is a serious point.
      Mr. Mullin: Our position, which I stated at the outset and which I now repeat, is that safety is paramount. The safety arrangements that exist now are extremely good, as everyone recognises. We intend to maintain them when the PPP is up and running. In addition, we are willing to listen to any sensible suggestions, from whatever source, to enhance safety. We have had some sensible suggestions and we are taking them seriously. Indeed, I expect to implement some of them. I make the point again that the PPP of air traffic control will, if anything, enhance safety arrangements.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South mentioned that there was a public perception that the sale of part of air traffic control would undermine safety. Like many public perceptions, it is wrong. It is the job of all responsible people to put right such misconceptions. Indeed, those misconceptions are shared by a number of hon. Members, and it is the job of the Government and those concerned with safety regulation and of the management of air traffic control to make sure that the correct perception and correct facts are given to the public.

      457
      It is a little-known fact—people are constantly surprised by it, although one or two hon. Members are obviously aware of it because they referred to it—that, at many private airports—there is a long list of them which I do not have with me—air traffic control is already in private hands and has been for many years. It is regulated in the same way as air traffic control elsewhere and is working extremely effectively. Anyone who alleges that selling a stake in air traffic control to the private sector will make arrangements less safe must confront the fact that, already in a large number of airports, air traffic control is privately managed.
      Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): Is my hon. Friend aware that London Luton airport, which I am proud to represent, is one of those 18 airports that is not controlled by NATS and is already a public private partnership? It is one of the fastest growing United Kingdom airports. The Queen recently opened its second terminal. It employs an increasing number of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to maintain the confidence of air passengers who go through London Luton for the sake of the industry and our local economies?
      Mr. Mullin: That is true of Luton and of others. A list has now mysteriously appeared in front of me. The other day I had the pleasure of visiting East Midlands airport. It is quite a large privately owned airport where air traffic control has been privately operated for many years and is working perfectly satisfactorily. There are at least 18 others, including Belfast, Blackpool, Bristol, Bournemouth, Coventry, Exeter, Guernsey, Humberside, Isle of Man, Jersey, London Luton, Liverpool, Leeds Bradford, Newcastle, Prestwick and Teesside. I know that some of those are small and I do not try to draw any too large conclusions, but some are considerable operations and have been working satisfactorily. In addition, the CAA already regulates the BAA and airlines that are in private hands. The CAA already has a lot of experience of regulating the private sector, so we are not breaking any new ground.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will not misunderstand me when I say that to suggest that the operation of any one of his list of worthy and developing airports is equivalent to air traffic control over London is rather embarrassing. I hope that he will not persist.
      Mr. Mullin: I am not suggesting that, of course. I said that I was not seeking to draw significant conclusions from it. But it is wrong to allege that the principle is somehow impossible, and that putting air traffic control into the private sector—albeit with state regulation, which is what we intend— introduces a huge new problem that has never before been confronted. That is all that I am saying—I put it no more strongly than that.
      Mr. Gray: The Minister said a moment ago that the public-private partnership would, if anything, enhance safety. Is he suggesting that safety is less than 100 per cent? Presumably, he is. Secondly, will he tell us in precise detail how the proposed PPP will enhance safety?
      Mr. Mullin: I am not alleging that safety is anything less than 100 per cent. at present. I am simply saying that
      458
      we are in the market for any suggestions to enhance safety. A number of constructive suggestions have already come from interested parties. I mentioned one, which the hon. Gentleman may have missed—to have a director on the board of the new company with specific responsibility for safety. We will consider any other suggestions seriously.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me about integration with military flights. Our proposals for air traffic control have been discussed with the Ministry of Defence, which is satisfied with the arrangements. We intend to ensure that the present excellent arrangements for co-operation between the military and civil air traffic control will be maintained. We shall lay an obligation on the National Air Traffic Services through its licence. NATS is negotiating a detailed contract for the delivery of joint and integrated services. I can give an assurance that the public-private partnership will have no adverse effect on the arrangements.
      Miss McIntosh: The Minister answered the question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Could he also put my mind at rest that the Eurofighter will be fitted with the collision warning system that the Tornado has when it comes on stream in 2002?
      Mr. Mullin: I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. If a note about that reaches me during the course of the debate, I shall certainly convey its contents. If not, I shall write to the hon. Lady. I assume that she would not want me to reply off the top off my head.
      The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) made a number of sensible points. He referred to the huge pressure that will undoubtedly continue to be placed on those who work in the aviation industry by the exponential growth of the demand for air travel. There has been a 7 per cent. increase in recent years. He was right to say that it will put a great strain on the technology and on the personnel responsible for operating the technology. That is why we have to invest in new technology worth £1 billion. That is one reason—only one—why we are setting up a public-private partnership. It will require a radically new system. Incidentally, the technology is destined to go on changing—even when we have achieved the changes that will be made at Swanwick and Prestwick, that will not be the end of the matter. There are other, much larger, changes in the pipeline, and we have to be ready to meet them. That is another reason why we need to bring in the private sector.
      The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that there was some confusion about the amount of money that we hoped to raise from the sale. He had, as he said, a cast-iron alibi for his non-attendance at the Select Committee the other day. The same alibi does not apply to the other two Conservative Members who were absent.
      Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Chairman of the Select Committee knows only too well, I was seconded to serve by special request on the special procedures committee considering the Tunstall northern bypass Stoke-on-Trent compulsory

      459
      purchase order, and I have been doing that for six hours a day, four days a week, for the past three weeks. I was relieved from that duty only—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is a very interesting explanation for the hon. Lady's absence from the Committee, but it is hardly a point of order for the Chair.
      Mr. Mullin: The hon. Lady has my deepest sympathies. I do not seek to make too much of this point, except to say that I was, in my previous incarnation, a Chairman of a Select Committee, and one or two Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) take them very seriously. But some do not, and I was disappointed when I appeared before the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee the other day that not a single Conservative Member was present. It goes beyond disappointment and becomes galling when the very same Conservative Members crop up in the Chamber a few days later and demand the answers to questions that have been given elsewhere.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I am happy to support the normal exchange of insults. However, all the Conservative members of the Select Committee had legitimate reasons not to attend. I hope that the Minister will not use my Committee as an excuse for this kind of exchange.
      Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for that information. I think that we should now move on and keep within the spirit of the debate.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Mullin: No, I must move on, because I have only 10 minutes or so left, and hon. Members want replies to their questions.
      The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that there was some confusion about how much money will be raised. No one can predict with certainty how much money will be raised from any sale of public assets. However, the £350 million estimated as the possible income from the sale of the 46 per cent. stake is exclusive of the debt. I hope that that is helpful.
      The hon. Members for Poole, for Aldershot and for North Wiltshire referred to problems with the European Union. We all know the difficulties that some Conservative Members have with foreigners in general and the EU in particular. I have no intention of intruding on private grief, but a serious point was made, which was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). Signing up to any future arrangements with Europe must not become an opportunity to dilute this country's very high standards. I entirely accept that. We will not agree to anything that undermines rather than raises standards.
      Directives from Europe sometimes raise rather than lower standards. For example, environmental standards in this country used often to be lamentable, and we must be grateful to the EU for some of the measures that it forced the previous Government to adopt—albeit with some reluctance—and that we have adopted with rather more enthusiasm.
      460
      A point was made about the inspection of foreign aircraft, which was addressed to some extent in the Government's response to the report. We have doubled the budget for foreign aircraft inspections. We take the matter seriously, and hon. Members were right to raise it. We have agreed to an intensive programme of checks with the CAA. In the six months from 1 April, 56 checks were completed, which compares with 63 in the previous 12 months. The number of inspections is expected to accelerate over the winter months.
      The safety regulation group works on the basis that hired foreign aircraft are expected to have safety levels equivalent to those in the United Kingdom. Rather than make general, untargeted checks, the group tends to concentrate on areas in which there is cause for concern.
      Mr. Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not, as I have only five minutes left and have been generous in giving way.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich was among hon. Members who referred to the allegation that a plane attempted to land at Heathrow with very little fuel in its tanks. It has not been possible to verify the allegations. The airline mentioned was Malaysia Airlines. Departmental officials met representatives of the airline to review its fuel policy, which the CAA judged to be in line with international requirements. In May, it was agreed that the airline should provide my Department with weekly fuel reports for all its aircraft, and it has done so.
      The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) referred to the millennium.
      Dr. Tonge indicated dissent.
      Mr. Mullin: The hon. Lady shakes her head at me. Someone asked me to refer to it.
      Mr. Brake indicated assent.
      Mr. Mullin: I apologise to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who asked me to confirm that we are millennium compliant. The UK industry is compliant. As regards foreign airlines, two—Gulf Air and Southern Aviation of Zambia—have yet to supply appropriate information. Those airlines have been advised that their permits will be suspended over the millennium if satisfactory information is not forthcoming.
      Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, referred to concerns about the shortage of staff in the industry and training. Following publication of the Select Committee's report, an interdepartmental working group was established to consider what role the Government might play in supporting efforts to tackle the shortage of aircraft maintenance engineers, which we all agree is serious. The group has met three times—most recently on 13 December.
      The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about air rage incidents. The Government have set up a working group on disruptive passengers. Our consciousness of this problem is relatively new, and we need to collect information on the scale of the problem so that we may analyse it. The CAA has been collecting data for six months, and I expect to receive an analysis of the figures early next year. I do not want to jump the gun until the information is before me.

      461
      The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to two extremely disturbing incidents that occurred over her constituency. I recall reading about those incidents in the newspapers at the time. Given what happened, I entirely understand the terms in which she expressed her concern on her constituents' behalf. Thankfully such incidents are extremely rare, although I appreciate that that is no consolation to anyone who happened to be involved. It is not always possible to identify the aircraft concerned, although it was possible in one of the two cases mentioned by the hon. Lady. The CAA works with all UK airlines to make sure that their aircraft are properly maintained and to enforce mandatory modifications to waste systems where necessary.
      Terminal 5 was raised by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and several other hon. Members. The inspector completed his inquiries in March. He estimates that it will take him two years to write the report. It will arrive at my Department, therefore, in 2001. The hon. Lady asked whether the Government would accept its recommendations. It is normal practice to wait for a report before deciding whether to accept it. The most important thing is to get it right.
      I repeat that I am conscious that I have not managed to address all the points raised in the debate, although I hope the House will concede that I have dealt with several. I refute the suggestion—
      Question deferred, pursuant to paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) and Sessional Order of 25 October 1999 and resolution [29 November].

ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 2ND PART]
ESTIMATES DAY
  Class XIII, Vote 1

    Scotland Office
    [Relevant documents: First Report from the Scottish Affairs Committee, Session 1998–99, Inward/Outward Investment in Scotland, HC 84, as it relates to the Estimate, and the response of the Government and the Scottish Executive thereto, HC 119 of Session 1999–2000; Departments of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Forestry Commission Departmental Report 1999, Cm.4215.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a sum, not exceeding £5,810,419,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Scotland Office on administrative costs and operational costs; electoral publicity; the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland; other devolution costs, including the panel to oversee the cross-party electoral expenditure agreement and on a grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.—[Mrs. Anne McGuire.]
    4.55 pm
    Mr. David Marshall: This is a unique debate. The report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on inward-outward investment in
    462
    Scotland, which was printed on 24 June, exactly seven days before the Scottish Parliament came into operation, is the first report by a departmental Select Committee on one of the devolved areas of the United Kingdom to be debated on the Floor of the House.
    The debate is also unique because it enables us to consider not only the response to our report by the UK Government, but the response of the Scottish Executive, both of which documents were ordered to be printed only yesterday and have been available only since 11 am today.
    There is one more unique feature, inasmuch as we can also consider, and make references to, the memorandum of understanding and supplementary agreements between the United Kingdom Government, Scottish Ministers and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales, which was presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor in October, and the subsequent concordat between the Scottish Executive and the Department of Trade and Industry. Those are extremely important documents for the future of inward investment.
    As a member of the Liaison Committee, I am grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for recommending the estimate for debate today. I am grateful also to all the members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs representing all four parties, and to the Committee staff for all the hard work that went into the conduct of the inquiry and the compilation of the report. I thank our three specialist advisers, Professors Neil Hood and Stephen Young of Strathclyde university and Mr. Alf Young of The Herald.
    Thanks are also due to all those who gave oral evidence to the Committee, and to all the individuals and organisations who submitted written memorandums or who participated in our informal visits in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the United States.
    Our report is published in three volumes. Its recommendations were agreed by all four parties represented on the Committee.
    I know that many of my hon. Friends and colleagues on the Opposition Benches want to participate in the debate, which is restricted to two hours. I shall therefore be as brief as possible, but a number of points must be made.
    I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has chosen to respond to the debate. As it progresses, I am confident that it will demonstrate the wisdom of the House in maintaining Select Committees such as ours to consider the vital aspects of reserved powers as they relate to matters such as those that we are discussing today, especially the roles of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as well as scrutinising the work of the Scotland Office. I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes that, just as he welcomes appearing before the Select Committee—at least, I think that he does.
    The Committee's inquiry was a follow-up to a previous Committee inquiry in 1979–80 Session, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), now Scotland's First Minister, was its Chairman. This time, however, we added outward investment to the terms of reference. The Committee considered it important to revisit the report of almost 20 years to see what, if anything, had changed and what

    463
    progress, if any, had been made. It carried out that inquiry simultaneously with its inquiry into tourism. We were all impressed by the number of similarities between the two.
    Although the majority of our 10 conclusions and recommendations relate to matters now devolved to the Scottish Parliament, there are important policy areas that are reserved to the UK Government, such as international relations and trading agreements, which have a vital influence on the operation of agencies such as Locate in Scotland and Scottish Trade International. I referred earlier to the roles of the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which are paramount in respect of both those bodies.
    Despite devolution, many of the factors affecting the climate for inward investment are reserved—for example, designation of assisted areas, taxation, employment legislation, air transport liberalisation and, most important, the promotion of the UK as a whole to foreign investors.
    Earlier, I referred to the memorandum of understanding and the concordats. It would have been useful for the Committee to have had those during the course of its inquiries, but it was not to be. None the less, our report is relevant. The memorandum and concordats set out common UK guidelines and consultation arrangements in respect of co-ordination of European policy issues, on financial assistance to industry, international relations and statistics.
    The concordat on financial assistance to industry provides for consultation between the interested parties in each particular case before offers are made to large mobile investments where there is an interest in more than one part of the UK, where it is proposed to breach agreed financial limits, and where relocation from one part of the UK to another is involved. No doubt, other hon. Members will have something to say on some of those points.
    The arrangements will be overseen by representatives of the UK Government and devolved Administrations, and will facilitate the exchange of information on financial assistance between both Administrations. Hopefully, those concordats create a level playing field. They will be essential in resolving any conflict that may arise in future, especially in view of the increased competition between the regional development agencies in England and their Scottish and Welsh counterparts.
    The Committee was impressed by the professionalism of Locate in Scotland and the high regard in which it was held by everyone, including its competitors. Regardless of the future of Scottish Enterprise, I hope that Locate in Scotland will continue and that it will be adequately funded. That is essential to meet the ever-increasing worldwide competition for whatever inward investment projects there are to be won.
    I welcome the general tenor of the Government's response to our report and their agreement with most of our findings. I especially welcome the apparent good will and co-operation between the Secretary of State's office and that of the Scottish Executive, and the desire to work together for the benefit of Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) may laugh, but he should not believe everything that he reads in the press. The good will is there and the report proves that, particularly the responses from the Government and the Scottish Executive.
    464
    That bodes well for the Chancellor's most welcome announcement about the establishment of joint action committees and for the Select Committee's desire to work closely with the Scottish Parliament's social inclusion committee on our inquiry into poverty in Scotland.
    I also welcome the Scottish Executive's response. They do not agree with some of the Committee's findings, but they accept and welcome others. In general, they accept that our report was on the right lines and appear to be moving towards making the changes that we suggested. It is always interesting to note the way in which movement is described, which in this case would appear to suggest that it was always intended, regardless of any Select Committee inquiry.
    I am deeply disappointed at the Scottish Executive's response on transport issues in paragraph 5. All the evidence given to us highlighted the need for the completion of the last six miles of the M74 in Glasgow, much of it in my constituency. For economic, environmental and social reasons, that should have been the number 1 priority in the roads programme in Scotland. It would protect many existing jobs, open up many hundreds, if not more than a thousand, acres of derelict land for development, and create the potential for several thousand new jobs, as well as removing a malignant eyesore on the surface of Glasgow. It would relieve pressure on the Kingston bridge and reduce congestion and pollution in the city centre, resulting in huge environmental improvements. It would also reduce road accidents, especially for children and old people, especially, again, in my constituency due to the high volumes of through traffic which really should not be there and would not be there if the M74 were completed.
    The Scottish Executive has suggested that the local authorities should take the project forward themselves, but that inevitably means road tolls, which would defeat the whole purpose, would add substantial cost to industry and would definitely not be an incentive to inward investment.
    Equally, the UK Government need to ensure that the north of England above Birmingham, Scotland and Northern Ireland benefit from good rail and road connections to their major markets, especially in respect of perishable products and products with a short shelf life. We should not forget that the A75 from Gretna to Stranraer is Northern Ireland's main link with Europe.
    We are familiar with recent reports, which highlighted the north-south and east-west divides in unemployment, poverty and health. Unfortunately, for reasons that other Labour Members understand only too well, my constituency is at the top of the list, closely followed by most of the other Glasgow constituencies. It is therefore incredible that the Glasgow development agency, the Glasgow Alliance—I confess to being a board member—and Glasgow city council did not make submissions to the Select Committee, despite being told about our inquiry. That is unacceptable, given that Glasgow lost the equivalent of Ravenscraig almost every year for almost 20 years until 1997, and that inward investment to Glasgow almost never meant manufacturing jobs but instead service sector jobs. Those bodies should have made an input into the inquiry, and must accept the blame for not getting their act together and doing so. I make no apology for publicly criticising them. I hope that they will learn from their mistake and do their utmost on behalf of the city.

    465
    Since 1997, Labour's record in attracting inward investment to Scotland has been outstanding. From May 1997 to date, inward investment has amounted to more than £2 billion and an estimated 30,000 jobs. That success is due to economic growth and the stable economy that the Government established, and to Labour ending the Tory years of boom and bust and 18 wasted years for Scotland. It is also due to the partnership between the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Executive and various agencies, and to devolving decision making to local levels. Devolution will enable Scotland to continue attracting record rates of investment. The nationalists would put all that at risk by divorcing Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not belittle the success of the past two years—although not of the past year—in attracting inward investment to Scotland. In the past year, inward investment has decreased. Statistics clearly show that the years 1991 to 1997 constituted a record period of investment and exponential growth. That happened under a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Marshall: if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about Scotland, he would hesitate to point out any possible deficiencies in a period of two years when, for 18 years, the people of Scotland suffered at the hands of his Government.
    The nationalists would put the success of the past two and a half years at risk by divorcing Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom and cutting off Scottish business men from their biggest single market. Divorce can be costly.
    The report acknowledged the need to attract high-tech, highly skilled research and development and added-value jobs, but we also appreciate the need to attract any sort of job. A job is a job, especially for someone who is desperate to get one, as most unemployed people in Scotland are. I warmly welcome the Government's measures such as the new deal, priority for education and training, the national minimum wage and investment in people. They will help to equip the people of Scotland to maintain and improve its attractiveness as a major destination for inward investment, thus helping to ensure and contribute to its future prosperity. If our Select Committee inquiry and report have also helped, even in a small way, they will have been worth while.
    5.9 pm
    Mr. Michael Moore: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), on whose Select Committee I served for the first two and a half years of the Parliament. The inquiry was especially important, and I was pleased to sign up to the report at its conclusion.
    Economic development in Scotland, as well as in the whole of the United Kingdom, has always been a key point of political debate and, as the exchanges across the Floor of the House have shown, inward investment is a key aspect of that debate. In its inquiry, the Committee sought to strip away some of the myths that have undoubtedly grown up around sensitive issues such as
    466
    inward investment and tried to get to the core of the arguments: whether inward investment is a good thing; whether Scotland has become over-dependent on it; and whether we can expect to sustain the quality and nature of the investment that we enjoy. A number of those themes were usefully explored and I want to highlight in particular the fact that the nature of investment and the types of future direct foreign investment that we may hope to attract to Scotland will change. The assembly operations that have been a feature of inward investment over the past 20 years will decline in significance over the next 10 or 20 years and, notwithstanding the comment of the hon. Member for Shettleston that a job is a job, the nature and availability of some of those jobs will certainly change.
    The location of the investment in Scotland has also caused great concern and great argument. We have different perspectives because we represent different parts of the country, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, at times, it has seemed as though the inward investment that we have enjoyed has been focused on particular areas. Although Glasgow may have been badly neglected, those of us who represent rural parts of Scotland feel that that is the case for our areas as well.
    The world economy is changing, we are losing some of our old industries and Scotland's economic shape is different from that at the beginning of the 1980s, when a previous Select Committee considered this issue. One of the most encouraging aspects of our inquiry was the fact that many of the lessons and warning signals that we were told about were actively being tackled by Locate in Scotland. Like many other members of the Committee, I pay tribute to the hard work that it does around the world and the extremely high success rate that it has achieved over many years. The highlight in that respect is the Project Alba development and the idea that Scotland can be at the forefront of the very industries—
    Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He congratulated Locate in Scotland and I heartily endorse that but, in view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), does he agree with the statistics provided by it showing that the highest level of planned investment ever recorded in Scotland—£3.1216 billion£was made in 1996-97?
    Mr. Moore: I have no desire at all to enter into a sterile party political debate; I want to focus on these different and dynamic types of inward investment. I spent the first few minutes of my speech explaining that the nature of inward investment in Scotland is changing and one year's statistics are irrelevant two years down the line. I repeat the invitation made by the hon. Member for Shettleston: the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) should visit Scotland and see these places for himself.
    The Committee's report referred to the first-class support that exists, but I want to focus briefly on a couple of themes before discussing an issue that is of particular concern to me and to my constituents—it lies at the heart of some of the remaining problems that we have with inward investment. I have touched briefly on the idea that the rural parts of Scotland have traditionally lost out, although I acknowledge the efforts of then Scottish Office and, in particular, the Minister of State, Scotland Office to respond to the difficulties in the Borders over the past

    467
    18 months to two years. A rural unit was established in Locate in Scotland, but my concern is that, because it has only a couple of people, it will be hard pressed to tackle the issues seriously unless it comes under the new Scottish Executive arrangements. It must be able to attract significant and realistic resources for the next few years.
    When we spoke to the professionals in the United Kingdom, when we were in the United States and when we met Locate in Scotland officials, we were told time and again that it would not matter what we did to point people in a particular direction. Ultimately, companies would decide for themselves where they would go, and would be influenced by the existing criteria and what was available to people in the part of the world that was involved. Such companies would have a number of requirements, but transport links and the transport infrastructure in a given area would rank high in their list of priorities. Those of us who represent the more rural parts of Scotland are very conscious of the fact that that immediately disadvantages us.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is it not the case that an area that is not close to one of the new towns will also be denied access to potential investment? Part of the "cluster syndrome" is geographical, in that it focuses on new towns. My constituency includes Clackmannanshire, which is surrounded by about three new towns, and which is also a black hole down which a good deal of investment seems to disappear. The investment goes elsewhere, and I think that the Borders suffers from the same problem.
    Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. There are a number of reasons why inward investors are attracted to particular areas, including tax regimes and the available incentives. There is also the question of numbers, to which I shall return in due course. Like the hon. Member for Shettleston, I am glad that the Secretary of State will respond to the debate. I urge him to use his influence, and his co-ordinating and championing roles, to ensure that transport links within Scotland, and between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, are not neglected, and are developed further.
    The main point that I want to make relates to the sad case of Viasystems. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 47 of the report, which gives a brief resume of some of the difficulties faced by my constituencies in the light of that case. The loss of 1,000 jobs from the Viasystems site has been the worst single industrial disaster in the Borders in 30 years. As paragraph 47 of the report makes clear, the issues at stake with those job losses lie at the heart of the debate on whether inward investment has been good for Scotland, and whether competition between different parts of the United Kingdom has always been handled in the most positive and constructive manner.
    Viasystems was the final incarnation of the idea of a company that was indigenous, in the Borders, and built up from scratch over 30 years. When it was taken over by what I can only politely describe as a bunch of unscrupulous American corporate financiers, it was clear that they intended to close down the sites on the Borders, and to move both jobs and contracts to other parts of the United Kingdom.
    At an early stage, what concerned us most was the fact that Viasystems had also taken on ownership of
    468
    International Systems Ltd. in north Tyneside, just across the border. It had received a Government grant of £12 million. The project to build the facility and recruit people to do jobs was incomplete at the time when Viasystems was acquired, which allowed it to make serious strategic decisions about the way in which it would organise its business in future. Viasystems was provided with a state-of-the-art facility in an area that was increasingly concentrating its resources and was very capital intensive, while just up the road there was older equipment, and no hope of competing in terms of the economies of scale.
    It was with some nervousness that those of us in the Borders learned of the strategic vision presented to the backers in the United States. We learned that Viasystems wanted to control the world market in printed circuit boards. We may all have our views about people who set out to dominate the world. It often ends in tears, and many of them have been shed in my part of the world.
    Early in 1998, Viasystems announced a series of poor results. It clearly overestimated its ability to acquire and integrate new facilities successfully. It was not helped by a world downturn. We were concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) accompanied me to meetings to discuss the poor results and the threat of redundancies, talk of which was beginning.
    Information began to trickle out from management, unions and employees not only that wholesale redundancies were in prospect, but that, early in 1998, several contracts were already being passed to north Tyneside. Expertise was being shipped out, at a cost to people trained to do highly technical and specialist work that had previously been done in the Borders.
    On 19 May 1998, I wrote to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). I commented in the letter:
    "There can be little doubt that business is being diverted from plants such as Selkirk and Galashiels to maximise the efficiency of the new site."
    Early on, we were giving warnings and alerting Government to the fact that there was a serious problem.
    Later that summer, we had further bad news. We had already lost 200 or 300 jobs and we began to hear rumours that the sites might be closed in their entirety. With my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I led a delegation to St. Louis, Missouri, the location of Viasystems worldwide headquarters. We had assistance from unions, the local enterprise company and the local council. We went there in the hope of finding out what Viasystems had in store for us. Our anxiety was simply that, with the facility in north Tyneside, it was going to be able to close our local factories.
    Before we went, we had a meeting with Lord MacDonald of Tradeston, the Minister with responsibility for trade and industry at the Scotland Office. I have subsequently been able to get hold of the Scotland Office minutes for that meeting, which confirms my recollection of the occurrence.
    I do wish to refer to the civil servant who was talking at the time by name—I pay tribute to the civil servants,

    469
    who tried hard to work with us to find a solution—but he said at the meeting:
    "The factory was still being kitted out and built up to full production levels"—
    this was in August 1998—
    "but, again, the payment of grant would be dependent on both the company's ability to prove that products within the North of England were not simply being substituted for those previously produced in the Scottish Borders, nor were redundancies taking place in Scotland at the same time as government grant was being paid out in England. There had to be a clear definition that these were new lines of work, and it would be the DTI's responsibility to check carefully that this was the case. The Scottish Office would be liaising closely with the DTI to ensure that this condition was fully met."
    At that point, we felt that we had at least some support and that there was at least some hope of ensuring that the corporation would not abuse the inward investment rules to ensure advantage for one part of the country over another. Sadly, as many hon. Members will be aware, our trip to St. Louis was not successful and, ultimately, the decision was taken to close those factories.
    At that point, I began to call for a public inquiry, so that we could learn some lessons from what had been a devastating time in the Borders, the scars of which are still evident to anyone who visits the area. On different occasions, I requested public inquiries. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), now Scottish First Minister, rebuffed those and said that nothing had been revealed at internal inquiries.
    I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry requesting that he carry out an inquiry and make the findings public. I got a response from the then Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills). He said:
    "I can assure you that the grant offered by DTI for the plant in the North East stands independently of any transfers of work from existing facilities in the UK".
    That immediately contradicts the assurance that we had been given only months before at the Scottish Office meeting.
    In the same letter, the then Trade and Industry Minister commented:
    "Our monitoring of the project will ensure that the new jobs are created in accordance with the offer and that we do not pay for work simply transferred from the Borders."
    I tell the Secretary of State and other hon. Members that no one in the Borders believes that that investigation has been done, and no one accepts that the jobs in the north Tyneside plant have been created other than at the expense of the Borders.
    Most recently, we started to believe that we had hit our head against a brick wall for the final time. On 7 April 1999, the right hon. Member for Anniesland wrote to me and said:
    "payment of that grant by DTI has been carefully monitored to ensure that it is not being used to assist the transfer of work from the Borders to Newcastle."
    He again rejected the call for a public inquiry.
    There has, however, been a further piece of correspondence—and perhaps devolution has taken its toll. Ultimately, we have had a letter from the Scottish
    470
    Executive's Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning—the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish)—who recently wrote:
    "I can confirm there is no condition attached to the grant precluding workers from any particular area taking jobs created on the Viasystems (Tyneside) site. Equally, the monitoring of the grant does not require a check on the previous employment of any of the workers."
    All that correspondence, and all the notes of meetings that we have obtained, point to one fact: whatever has happened in the Scottish Office—now the Scottish Executive and the Scotland Office—the DTI is not signed up to the internal inquiries. Indeed, decisions being taken by the Scottish Executive seem to show that they are washing their hands of the entire process. I very much regret that.
    The matter has left in the public mind an impression of complete mess and a feeling of utter disappointment. The public inquiry that I have called for, and that has been supported by other hon. Members, is needed now more than ever. I am not simply hoping that we shall be able to return to the previous position—no one believes that that is possible—but it would be helpful if Ministers would admit that mistakes have been made, and perhaps even apologise to those who have lost their jobs. Most importantly, we want to learn lessons for the future.
    It would be unfortunate if I were not to highlight the fact that there have been some positive responses—many positive responses—from the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive. A working party has examined the devastation associated with Viasystems and with the many other hundreds of jobs that have been lost in textiles and farming. There has also been additional funding for Scottish Borders Enterprise and relaxation of capital constraints for the local council. However, the process is slow, and many people in the area are extremely unhappy and worried that, eventually, those measures will replace the many thousands of jobs that were lost.
    The report is good and constructive, and it offers the House a valuable insight into the changing market for inward investment into the United Kingdom generally. More than anything else, however, it highlights the fact that there are still many lessons to be learned about inward investment into Scotland and into the United Kingdom generally.
    Several hon Members. rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and, unless the remaining speeches are reasonably brief, many people will be very disappointed.
    5.28 pm
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I shall certainly attempt to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker—please make throat-cutting motions at me if I am not.
    Just as I know that there are other planets circling other suns millions of miles away, although I have never seen one, I know that there are inward-investing firms creating thousands of jobs in Scotland, although I have never seen one in Maryhill. I never expected the Tories to care; and, now, things are beginning to be a bit better. I am hoping that things will be a lot better, and hope to hear some constructive comments at the end of the debate from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    471
    Although the report's recommendations are probably very sensible for Scotland generally, I honestly cannot say that they seem very relevant to much of my constituency or to other deprived areas around Glasgow. Glasgow has far too few substantial factories employing hundreds and owned by indigenous companies or inward investors. The biggest employers in my constituency are the public services. Scotland has a huge range of manufacturing jobs. They do not require exceptional skills or qualifications and can be sited anywhere, so I ask myself why those jobs are not coming to Glasgow.
    The Government have been successful in dealing with sudden job losses caused by factory closures in many parts of Scotland. In one or two cases, they have been so successful that the area has ended up with more jobs than it had to start with. The problem for Glasgow is that it lost thousands of jobs years and even decades ago. We need a task force to attract manufacturing jobs back in. I should like the Secretary of State to discuss that proposal with the Scottish Executive. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's view that jobs are the main way out of poverty. There are just not enough jobs in Glasgow. I want more private sector jobs in my constituency and in the city as a whole. I do not accept that that cannot be done.
    Today, we heard the splendid news that Scotland's dole queue fell last month to a 23-year low. The number of unemployed is down by 25,000 compared with a year ago. Glasgow's unemployment figures have fallen from 15 per cent. in 1996–97 to 13.5 per cent. in 1997–98, but the city's unemployment rate, currently 6.8 per cent., is still double that of Scotland as a whole. Unemployment in my constituency stood at 10.1 per cent. in April this year. That is an improvement on 1997, when it was 13.6 per cent, but it is still too high.
    A lot of the jobs that have come to Glasgow are in call centres. They are low paid because employers know that people are desperate for work. If it were not for Labour's national minimum wage policy, a lot of people who are in work would be far worse off than they are.
    The in phrase now is "drive to move up the value chain". Many of my constituents would like to be on the first rung of that chain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) has pointed out, the three-volume report devotes only half a page to Glasgow, dealing with the contribution from the regeneration fund on micro-enterprises. That fund has only £3 million to spend on Castlemilk, Drumchapel, the east end, north Glasgow, Gorbals, Govan, Greater Easterhouse and Greater Pollok. That sum should be looked at afresh.
    The Federation of Small Businesses recently proposed the creation of a Scottish enterprise development bank to overcome the problem of the conservative attitudes of the major banks' lending policies. Perhaps we could consider that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston has said, the Glasgow agencies failed to respond to the request to offer evidence to the Committee. I have not had time to find out why. Perhaps they all thought that someone else was doing it. I would have liked to hear their views on shipbuilding. Glasgow Members have lost count of the number of times that Govan or Yarrows have had to look for support to win a necessary contract. The world needs ships and they are being built elsewhere. We hear reasons why the contracts go out of the country. Sometimes there
    472
    are allegations that other Governments are less punctilious than ours about competition rules, although our Government say that that is not the case.
    Somehow our city, which led the way in shipbuilding, is not getting its share of the world market. There is a history of under-investment to explain the loss of the trade in earlier years, but now I am told that our yards are as high-tech as any in the world, so I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would consider commissioning a study of what our yards need to do to get back a decent share of the world trade in shipbuilding.
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office, responded to an earlier plea of mine by creating a new addition to regional selective assistance of £3,000 per head for every new job taken up by a person living in a deprived area. When I last asked what had resulted from that very progressive initiative, which I greatly welcomed, I learned that some money had indeed been paid out, but none in Glasgow. I wonder whether employers are aware of it and are still saying no to investment in our poorer areas. If they are, we need to know what the employers are saying and then consider how to respond. This is information that we do not appear to have.
    One critical point in the report is that RSA focuses on the number of jobs created, rather than the quality, and does nothing to create high-quality jobs. There are some high-quality jobs in my constituency in the science park, but they are held in the main by people who live outside Glasgow and pay their council taxes outside Glasgow.
    Too many constituents in Maryhill and Glasgow generally have left school with few or no qualifications. Hardly anyone attends further education and higher education is rare for school leavers. There are problems in getting jobs that are appropriate for people who lack qualifications.
    Today's newspapers carry a story about the Scottish Parliament's Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee criticising confusion, overlap and duplication among the hundreds of agencies involved in support for enterprise, and the call for them to work together. This is already happening in Glasgow, with all the relevant agencies formed into an alliance. However, unemployment is twice the Scottish average. We have to take a fresh look at how to tackle that.
    Glasgow's job-creating efforts are not working as successfully as I would like. I would like a detailed examination of why so few manufacturing companies looking for a suitable site end up in Glasgow. I know that they like greenfield sites, but we have plenty of attractions to offer. I wonder why it is not happening.
    The problem in Maryhill and constituencies like it is one of poverty that jobs can overcome. Just now, there is a lot of prosperity in our country and the shop windows are full of goodies, but too many of my constituents have no hope of enjoying much festive fare. Many good moves have been made by this Government in a short space of time—the working families tax credit, higher child benefit and the national minimum wage, to name only a few. However, we need jobs. I hope that we will get on with it and make a concentrated effort where needs are greatest.
    It is a long time since Maryhill had a boom, and too many of my constituents are bust. Let us have an end to boom and bust. It is time for action for Glasgow.
    5.37 pm
    Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)—not least because I spent a large amount of my childhood in my parents' car outside Mr. and Mrs. Moreland's butcher's shop in Maryhill road-— hope that is still there—which sold the best beef in Britain.
    May I apologise to the House, and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I will not be able to stay for the winding-up speeches, as I have been called away on other business?
    I wanted to take part in the debate because inward investment in Scotland is very important to me. The last thing that my father said to me before he died was, "Do not neglect the Kirk, nor forget Scotland." I fear that I may have done the former—not least because I attend the Church of England, for my sins, in North Wiltshire—but I have not done the second. Once a Scot, always a Scot, I believe. Despite the fact that I represent an English constituency, the interests of Scotland—and of my mother and relations, who live in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)—are always at the forefront of my mind, despite my strong English credentials when I speak on English matters.
    Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are concerned about a number of aspects of inward investment in Scotland. The statistics produced by the Locate in Scotland annual review show that projects came to a peak in 1993–94, at 97 a year, and the figure is now down to 78. Planned investment, which peaked in 1996–97 at £3.1 billion, is now down to only £761 million. Planned jobs, having peaked around the time of the general election, have declined considerably. Those statistics are worrying.
    Although I am not a member of the Select Committee, I thought that I might reflect on why those problems have occurred. There are three possible reasons. The first is the devolutionary muddle, as I see it. I have made no secret of the fact that, unlike the rest of my party, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the devolutionary settlement that the Government have imposed on my home country. The second reason is tax and regulation, and the third is transport.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Is not the downturn in the south-east Asian economy the most significant factor in the decrease in inward investment in the past couple of years?
    Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman may be right. I was not proposing an encyclopaedic tour of all the reasons for the decrease; there may be many.
    Inward investment has declined considerably this year compared with the previous two and with its peak under the previous Government. One gets tired of constantly hearing about boom and bust. The hon. Member for Maryhill mentioned it. The truth is that the statistics demonstrate that inward investment in Scotland was much better under the so-called boom-and-bust Conservative Government. Let us lay that ghost to rest.
    I want to discuss the devolution muddle, as I would describe it. It is peculiar that a Select Committee of the House produced the report but the response came partly from the Government and partly from the Scottish Executive. Will the Secretary of State carry back the
    474
    messages of this debate to the Scottish Executive and, more importantly, will that Executive listen to him? If press reports are anything to judge by, one is not entirely certain that it listens all that carefully to him.
    As an observer of these matters, I find it hard to work out what the Secretary of State's job is and what the purpose of the Select Committee and indeed the Grand Committee can be post devolution. It is all a bit of a muddle, and I hope that he may clear some of it up.
    What happens when there is a policy dispute between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government? Labour Members may say that there is no problem because that is all dealt with clearly in the concordats and memorandums, but what happens when a company is being courted by both England and Scotland and the UK Government want the investment to go to England? Who would get the investment?
    Labour Members may say that we have gone through all the great mechanism of the concordats precisely to sort that out. That may work—possibly—while there is a Labour Government in Edinburgh and a Labour Government in Westminster. I concede that there is likely to be a Labour Government or a Lib-Lab pact in Scotland—the Liberals may have some other view on that—for some time, although I think back happily to the time when my cousin was the Conservative Member for Glasgow, Govan, so let us not laugh too much about the Scottish Conservative revival. [Interruption.]Let us assume that there will be a Labour Government in Scotland for some time. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is absurd. The hon. Gentleman should be heard.
    Mr. Gray: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    What happens when there is a Labour Government in Edinburgh and a Conservative Government in Westminster, as will inevitably occur sooner or later? [Interruption.] Their febrile and fragile laughter suggests that Government Members may foresee that occasion coming sooner than some of the commentators would have us believe. What will happen to the concordats and memorandums then? If Government Members are saying that that will never happen, what has happened to their view of democracy? They are saying in their arrogant, new Labour way that there will never again be a Conservative Government because new Labour will run the world for ever and ever. The electorate will ensure that that arrogant approach comes back to haunt them.
    Conservative Members do not believe that the concordats will prove to be sufficiently robust to withstand a fundamental disagreement between the two Governments.
    I have concerns about inward investment in Scotland because of what the Government have done with taxes and regulations on business. Without any question, tax on business has greatly increased. The British Chambers of Commerce have calculated that costs for business will be increased by £30 billion by regulations introduced in this Parliament. Statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, available from the Library, demonstrate that the annual increase in UK productivity has declined since the general election, from 2.2 per cent. between 1992 and 1997 to an average rise

    475
    this year of 0.7 per cent. I mentioned the Scottish figures earlier, but those that I have just mentioned show that the UK figures have also fallen.
    The worrying fall in productivity, together with the rise in regulation, leads to loss of competitiveness. Indeed, in the world competitiveness league, Britain has fallen from fourth under the Conservatives to eighth under Labour. The Government must say why Britain is becoming less competitive and why Scotland, in particular, is suffering. British industry now produces 40 per cent. less per man hour than US firms and about 20 per cent. less than the French and the Germans.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland will suffer especially from the unparalleled rises in road fuel duty charges, given its greater distances? Does he also agree that some heavy goods industries in cities in Scotland will suffer disproportionately from the Government's proposed energy tax?
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. His point about the climate change levy—or energy tax, as it should be called—is pertinent. It is interesting that the Government appear to be listening to their Back Benchers and backing off slightly, but the energy tax will still cost the steel industry—which especially affects Scotland—£20 million a year.
    The president of the CBI, Clive Thompson, has said that the increase in taxation introduced by the Labour Government has amounted to much more than the sums that they give back, which are "trivial by comparison". How much worse that will be when the energy tax arrives. Bill Midgley, the president of the north-east chambers of commerce, has said:
    "It was disappointing that there was no mention of moves to reduce the amount of bureaucracy which is stifling business competitiveness."
    Tax and regulation are going up, but competitiveness is going down. [Interruption.] Labour Members are chattering, but they should listen to what Scottish Energy has said of the energy tax:
    "The Chancellor is doing what he does best—playing the three card trick. We are still concerned about the burden on the manufacturing industry because only energy intensive users are eligible for the discount quoted."
    In other words, Scotland will be especially heavily hit by the energy tax.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) mentioned transport issues, which are already affecting inward investment in Scotland. The Government's response to the Committee's report has been disappointing. Fuel duties remain, despite the Chancellor's brave attempt to pretend that he will do away with them. According to the Red Book attached to the pre-Budget report, fuel duties will increase next year. Scotland is vastly more affected than anywhere else in the UK by that disproportionate increase in petrol and diesel.
    Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Gentleman is pursuing an interesting line of argument. Were those arguments valid when the Conservative Government applied the fuel duty escalator many more times than even this disreputable Labour Government have done?
    Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. He was not here at the time but, if he had been, he
    476
    would have remembered that the Conservative Government introduced the fuel duty escalator at 3 per cent., straightforwardly to raise revenue. The then Chancellor said that he needed to raise more revenue for schools, hospitals and other things, so he would introduce a fuel duty escalator. This Government have put it up to 7 per cent. and, in the last Budget, the Chancellor said that it would continue indefinitely, although it is a bizarre escalator that never stops. The Government may be backing off it now, but the figures in the Red Book show a 4.6 per cent. increase in fuel duty year on year from now onwards.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. The Conservatives brought in the escalator at 2 per cent. and they immediately raised it to 3 per cent. They then raised it to 5 per cent. and, in a Green Paper just before the last election, they pledged that they would keep the fuel duty escalator. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he will not keep the fuel duty escalator. To complete the facts, of the 85p in the pound that is charged in fuel duty, 79p was imposed by the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his clarification of the fact that we brought in the escalator at 2 per cent. However, he repeats a worryingly misleading remark that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the pre-Budget statement. The Chancellor suggested that, somehow or other, he was ending the escalator. He is not; he is continuing it. All that he said was that he would hypothecate the extra and would use it for transport.
    There has been an interesting development in Labour party thinking. The Secretary of State for Scotland appears to be saying that the price of petrol will rise only by the rate of inflation—
    Dr. Reid rose—
    Mr. Gray: Will the Secretary of State hold on for a moment? My understanding of what the Secretary of State said is that the Chancellor has committed himself to increasing the price of petrol only by the rate of inflation year on year and that the increase will no longer be automatically higher than the rate of inflation. If that is what he is saying, how does he explain the figures in the table at the back of the Red Book that show a 4.6 per cent. increase in fuel duty income year on year, both for next year and the year after that?
    Dr. Reid: I can help the hon. Gentleman, who obviously supported a mechanism when the previous Government were in office that he did not understand. The difference with an automatic fuel duty escalator is that it rises automatically one year after another; it does not rise because of a year-on-year choice. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now abolished the duty. Moreover, he has said that, should there be, in any given year, any increase over inflation, that will be ring-fenced and put into transport. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman to understand the policy that he apparently supported without understanding for six years.
    Mr. Gray: I shall not rise to the Secretary of State's amusingly patronising manner. If he is suggesting that

    477
    petrol prices will not increase by more than the rate of inflation and that all the increase will be used for transport, which is not otherwise being provided for by the Government, I challenge him to return to the House after the next Budget when, without question, he will find that the price of petrol has gone up by far more than the rate of inflation. People in Scotland will thus pay disproportionately more because of the distances involved in travelling in Scotland.
    I am surprised to hear the Secretary of State justify the huge increases in petrol prices. In Scotland, petrol now costs £3.50, £3.60 and £3.70 a gallon, and I remember the days when my father used to fill up his car for 10 bob. A price of £3.50 a gallon is extraordinary and it bears down disproportionately on Scotland.
    I have a final point about transport. The Secretary of State says that all the money will be hypothecated. The important things about hypothecation are that it is permanent and that it provides additional money. We heard how little investment there has been in the transport infrastructure in Scotland, and the Select Committee went to some length to say how poor it was. Several hon. Members have said that they regret the fact that the response has not been better on that front. I therefore challenge the Secretary of State to commit the Government, without any deviation, to ring-fence all the extra revenue that may be raised through any increase in petrol duty next year for transport infrastructure in Scotland. Will he also specify what he will do after next year's Budget that he would not otherwise have done? In doing that, he will have to say that he will not provide the infrastructure that the Select Committee has called for.
    Inward investment in Scotland has declined because of the devolution muddle that I talked about and because of the significant increase in taxes and regulation that the Government have introduced nationally since they came to power two and a half years ago. Most significantly, the Government's muddle over transport—they have had four Transport Ministers, and the Secretary of State was one of them—and their failure to invest in the transport infrastructure of Scotland are having a worrying effect on inward investment.
    5.54 pm
    Mr. John McFall: I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate and particularly to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and his Committee for a worthwhile and substantial report.
    I have been keen to focus on certain issues over the years and they have been mentioned in the report. The first is inward investment and after care. The line between inward investment and investment by indigenous companies is becoming increasingly blurred. For example, 60 per cent. of all inward investment is reinvestment by existing companies. The need to focus on that is very important.
    Secondly, there is the issue of added value. Scotland used to be called a branch economy for inward investing companies—hopefully no more. The focus must be on research and development and on local sourcing. If we get that right—so far, too little attention has been paid to the matter—we will create many thousands more jobs in Scotland.
    478
    We must also consider the links between universities and industry. 1 recall the invention in the 1960s of flat-panel technology at Dundee university. The benefits of the technology were not produced or sourced there, with the result that more than 40,000 jobs are scattered around the world that should be in Scotland. Scottish Enterprise and the higher education institutions have looked at developing links between universities and the world of business and industry, but we have yet to move from analysis to action.
    The report mentions one-stop shops. Some years ago, I recall making inquiries about Glasgow in that regard and discovering that people wanting to set up a business could make about 80 separate lines of inquiry. There is therefore an awful long way to go before a one-stop shop can be established.
    I was delighted that the report suggested that Scottish Trade International and Locate in Scotland should merge. Another factor in that discussion is Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is making faces at me, but there is a need for a strategic competence covering the whole of Scotland. That could be achieved by combining Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, while still retaining the distinctive elements of the latter organisation.
    Finally, there is the question of the duplication of services on offer from local enterprise companies, local authorities, enterprise trusts and other local bodies. We must get that right if we are to focus on economic development at local level. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is right to say that there is no evidence of inward investment in many areas in Scotland. It is very important that we get that happening at local level.
    As for the present—and future—economic environment, we are on the verge of the knowledge economy. Through the internet, technologies for computers, telecommunications and broadcasting technologies are starting to converge. The result is that our lives and life styles are going to change enormously.
    For example, British Telecom has declared that it wants to source as much of its services as possible on the internet. In one year, that will save the company £70 million, and other companies are clearly going to follow suit. That will have implications for jobs, our town centres and for the way in which we do our business. We have not got around to thinking about that in Scotland yet, but e-commerce will affect how business is done.
    I visited Lindendale university in St. Louis recently. It has a student population of 8,000, and its president, Denis Spellman, told me that the university would have to change enormously as a result of the knowledge economy and e-commerce. The report contains echoes of that prediction. In paragraph 114, it states:
    "It is not enough to have excellent universities unless their output can be harnessed for the wider benefit of Scotland. This is not a uniquely Scottish problem; we heard in Virginia of the problems of bringing together to their mutual benefit a university culture whose roots are in the middle ages and whose time-scale is based on university terms and a technological one which thinks in web-hours and in which 'instant gratification is too slow'".
    The way in which business develops therefore has enormous implications for our universities.
    One area on which the report did not focus, but on which we should focus more, is the need to develop our local economy and to promote and develop small

    479
    businesses. In America, the success of the Clinton presidency was based on the development of 8 million jobs in small businesses during his first term. At the Glasgow chamber of commerce dinner a few weeks ago, Peter Sutherland, the ex-commissioner, mentioned that, every year in America, 900,000 businesses are set up. At the end of the year, 800,000 go out of business, but that means that 100,000 new businesses are set up every year. Scotland has not had a culture of starting new businesses, giving people confidence to develop their businesses and go through the pain barrier, and helping them develop. We need to do that. Yes, there are good ideas in Scotland but how do we harness them into developing businesses and keep them going? That is the big secret. In the 21st century, the economy will depend on the development of small businesses. It can be called entrepreneurship and it is important that schools and universities focus on it.
    A few weeks ago I read a book by Charles Handy called "The New Alchemists", in which he looks at entrepreneurs. Oswald Boateng, Charles Dunstane of the Car Warehouse company and Richard Branson left school without qualifications but with ideas. Somebody nurtured and encouraged them to develop their ideas. We need to do that in Scotland. In the 21st century, we will do that through our information and communications technology. We should widen the curriculum and ensure that we are ready to take advantage of future opportunities.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston said, we need infrastructure. I agree that the M74 is an important link because I want Scottish goods to get to our most important European market—England. It is important, too, if we are to get the benefits of the Single European Act, which Baroness Thatcher signed us up for in 1985, by putting our goods into Europe. We are not doing that sufficiently well now.
    I draw to the Secretary of State's attention a local issue. Last year. the J & B Whisky plant in my constituency was closed. To date, the Government have provided good help. Diageo, the company that closed it, West Dumbarton council, Dumbartonshire Enterprise and I are working very closely together to see if we can find a novel solution to replace the lost jobs. It was a body blow to lose 500 jobs and a company that had existed for 30 years. We need to do something to replace those jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been of assistance in the past and I know that he will continue to assist us. I assure him that I shall be knocking on his door.
    Finally on the economy in the 21st century, one writer drew an analogy between "fleas and elephants". I was reminded of that comment a few weeks ago when I met Governor Gray Davies of California. He said that, in the first six months of this year, venture capital investment was $$14 billion in California. Obviously, we could never get near that figure. In terms of that analogy, I think that we are a flea and it is important for the Scottish economy to get on the back of a good elephant. That is the way to prosper.
    Inward investment is important—never let us forget it. In Scotland, we have 600 overseas companies prospering themselves and the population, of which 50 per cent. come from north America, 40 per cent. from Europe and 10 per cent. from the far east. We must maintain that focus while having a complementary approach of developing and enhancing small businesses at local level. That way, we shall sustain our future.
    480
    It is important to take the lessons of the report to heart and to start implementing them now. I look forward, with my colleagues and the Scottish Executive, to the implementation of those policies so that we have a more prosperous and, most importantly, socially inclusive Scotland in the 21st century.
    6.4 pm
    Mr. John Swinney: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) who has just delivered a speech which demonstrates why he was such a successful Minister at the Northern Ireland Office. I warmly compliment him on his term in office there, and wish him well in his work on behalf of his constituents in Dumbarton.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about after care for businesses, and that applies across the board. In too many cases, while there is almost an overdose of support for starting up businesses—which has its own problems—there is a poverty of support when it comes to after care. That is of fundamental importance to the issues with which we are wrestling.
    I compliment the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on the report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which he is Chairman. It is a valuable report, assisted by the hon. Gentleman's experience of chairing other Select Committees. He brought to bear his considerable experience of transport issues in his contribution to the earlier debate. Perhaps I will leave that where it ended—in the debate.
    The report is thoughtful and dispassionate. I could accuse the hon. Gentleman of being thoughtful in his contribution, but 1 could not accuse him of being dispassionate. He expressed his views, including his views about other parties, very firmly. I shall come on to some of those points in a moment.
    The report makes many good, common-sense points, a number of which have been responded to positively by the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I specifically welcome what the Committee said about transport infrastructure. Considering the poverty of investment that our transport infrastructure has suffered in the past, and the dearth of investment in road and rail, it is no surprise that there is debate on both sides of the House about which project is the most important.
    I welcome the Committee's comments on encouraging a movement up the value chain of successful investments and projects. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) made the serious point that some people are still trying to get near the value chain before they can move up it.
    I also welcome the Committee's comments on the importance of measuring the success of assisted projects. All too often, debate is not enhanced by clear information about which projects have been successful and which have not. The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) raised a number of points about the difficulties that require scrutiny and answers. I hope that the Scottish Parliament may be able to consider some of those points.
    The hon. Member for Shettleston said that this was an unusual debate. It is unusual—it is a hybrid debate between one era and another. The Select Committee started its report pre—devolution and reported on the verge

    481
    of devolution taking legal effect. The Secretary of State's office and the Scottish Executive both responded to the report. Those two responses illustrate what has happened over the past few months. A vast number of areas of policy have passed from this House to the Scottish Parliament where they are being dealt with by Ministers.
    I would like to make some additional comments about three areas of the report. The first is about the relationship between Scottish Trade International and Locate in Scotland. The Committee recommended that the Scottish Parliament should consider merging Locate in Scotland and the STI, and suggested that more resources were required for the work of Locate in Scotland in the United States.
    I have always been concerned about the balance of resources allocated to inward investment and exporting. It has taken some time for the allocation of resources to export support to catch up with the support allocated to inward investment and exporting. The two are largely in the same ball park area within the Scottish budget. However, it is important that effective support is given to exporting, which has always struck me as the poor relation of that aspect of our approach to economic development. A huge challenge faces us on exporting. Too few of our companies do it. The report mentions that a substantial number of small and medium-sized enterprises export, but there are not enough of them.
    Mr. Douglas Alexander: Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on how a reduction from the significant diplomatic presence that the British state provides for Scottish exporters to the limited number of commercial embassies that the hon. Gentleman's party suggested at a previous Scottish election would in any way benefit those exporters?
    Mr. Swinney: I wondered how long it would take before the first pathetic Labour intervention on my speech—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) will listen to what I have to say, I shall answer the points raised in the Select Committee's report. We are here to discuss that thoughtful report, which was agreed by all parties.
    The report suggests a merger of Locate in Scotland and the STI. During the general election campaign, the Scottish National party argued for the closer integration of those two bodies and the Scottish tourist board. We argued for a single agency that would draw together all the external presence of those three bodies to ensure that we had a strong overseas presence to promote Scottish interests in exporting, inward investment and tourism.
    Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish making my point? The response of the Scottish Executive to the report makes it clear that they do not agree with the Select Committee's recommendation for merger, but it adds that there is room for greater co-operation and synergy between them. Surprise, surprise, the response continues to tell us that:
    "In a pilot exercise in the United States, the operations of LiS, STI and other parts of Scottish Enterprise are being more closely integrated to pursue more effectively the full range of relevant economic development opportunities available."
    482
    That was the argument that my party pursued at the election. If the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) wants to hark back to the 1999 election campaign, he should hark back on the facts, not his invention.
    Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Swinney: No, I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point and have nothing more to say on the matter. We need a realistic explanation of how the representation of Scotland can be advanced. It is a disgrace that Labour Members ridicule the arguments that we made at the election but now the Scottish Executive have submitted an endorsement of the SNP's policy at that election.
    Mr. Alexander rose—
    Mr. Swinney: The hon. Member for Paisley, South can keep bobbing up and down trying to make the same point, but I am going to move on.
    The second point on which I wish to touch is concordats, to which the hon. Member for Shettleston and the report referred. I thought of intervening on the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) when he lambasted the concordats for failing to deliver harmony between the Scottish Executive and the United Kingdom Government. I restrained myself because I could not remember whether the Conservative group in the Scottish Parliament had voted to endorse the concordats. I am fairly sure that it did, but I did not want to intervene only to find that I had the facts wrong. I am certain, none the less, that the hon. Gentleman's point was absolutely futile.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the concordats are not legally binding documents, but agreements between the Executive in Scotland and the Westminster Government. For a party in opposition—although not the hon. Gentleman's as he does not believe in the Union—an endorsement of the concordats is an endorsement of the best agreement that can be reached between the two Executives at any given moment. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman's criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) can possibly be valid. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Swinney: If the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) would like to explain what all that meant, I shall happily take his intervention. I do not quite follow the argument of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
    Paragraph C7 of the concordat on financial assistance to industry states:
    "There will be mutual consultation, between the interested parties in each particular case, in adequate detail and to a reasonable timescale, before making offers (formal or indicative) of financial assistance to cases within the following categories".
    I imagine that that is intended to cover the issues raised by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale in relation to Viasystems. In that respect, it may be a fair point to argue.
    My concern relates to evidence that was before the Select Committee. The hon. Members for North Wiltshire and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale dealt with

    483
    competition between different parts of the United Kingdom—an inward investment project coming to Scotland, versus one that was going to the north of England, perhaps, or the midlands. Paragraph 110 of the Select Committee report, entitled "Learning from the competition", records the evidence of—I assume—Mrs. Ray Macfarlane, the managing director, operations, of Scottish Enterprise. The report notes:
    "As previously stated, the Republic of Ireland has always been Scotland's 'arch enemy' in terms of inward investment. Mrs. Macfarlane hoped that as Scottish Enterprise went further down the line of looking for `tailored' `bespoke' projects which specifically suited the Scottish economy, the difficulty of putting `clear, blue water' between the two would recede. This remains to be seen."
    While Locate in Scotland and perhaps a regional development agency for a part of England are duly submitting their respective bids to the Joint Ministerial Committee for adjudication, and while the bids are being discussed in Committee, the global market is applying pressure to the inward investor for the contract. What we should fear is not other parts of the United Kingdom, but the global competition. The market is now a global market, and there is a danger that, while we are negotiating in Committee, the projects are haemorrhaging away to other parts of the European Union. That point remains unanswered, and I look forward to the answers at the end of the debate.
    A related issue between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster is regional selective assistance. There is an inconsistency between the map being reserved, and responsibility for decisions about allocations resting with Holyrood. We shall no doubt return to the matter in due course.
    The Select Committee recommends that Scottish Enterprise should provide a central service to advise indigenous firms seeking advice or assistance. The hon. Member for Maryhill referred to the report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee of the Scottish Parliament, which reported yesterday. I had the privilege to be in the Chair of that Committee.
    At the beginning of my speech, I probably should have declared an interest as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I apologise for not doing so.
    At the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee, I was pleased that we secured unanimity among all four parties on a thorough and robust report based on evidence taken over recent months on the issue of access by businesses to business support and advice in Scotland. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Maryhill is not present. She spoke about the Glasgow economy and the difficulty that some organisations experience in accessing business help.
    An enormous number of organisations in the market provide business support advice. The report of the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee refers to the range of organisations that are active in the Glasgow market offering such support. I am told that, if one turned on Radio Clyde and listened to the advertisements at any time of the day, one could find the telephone numbers of numerous organisations to contact for advice about business start-up.
    That diversity must be tackled. There are far too many providers of such services, often competing for the same clients, and in many cases using the same sources of
    484
    public money to provide those services. The losers in the process are the people who need the support to assist their business development. I am pleased by the extent of agreement that has been reached among the participants from the four political parties in that Committee in the Scottish Parliament, and by the positive response to the report that was published yesterday by the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish).
    What is important is that we spark a debate on how to deliver services to meet the demands of those who most wish to make a contribution to the developing Scottish economy. We have started that process and I look forward to further debate and discussion on the subject. Business support and economic development are fundamental to the health of the Scottish economy.
    The Select Committee's report heartily advances and develops the debate on a number of key aspects and subjects. We need to sustain an active presence in the area of inward investment to guarantee our stake in the global inward investment market. We must ensure that Scottish companies can deliver a strong presence on export markets and broaden the number of companies involved in the process.
    Most of all, we must have a cohesive and effective economic development strategy that delivers for the Scottish people and creates the right economic climate. Any climate that has interest rates at the height that they are now, with the damage that that causes to the Scottish business sector, is something on which the Government should reflect quickly.
    6.21 pm
    Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and the Select Committee on their report. I am pleased that I am now a member of that Committee and I look forward to some enjoyable sessions.
    Much of the report is relevant to my rural constituency in Dumfries and Galloway. Like the constituency of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), mine has seen many manufacturing job losses in the past couple of years. However, between 1987 and 1997, it also saw a loss of some 2,500 manufacturing jobs.
    When a rural area such as ours depends heavily on major companies such as Du Pont, Nestlé and Elopak, it is only natural that, when they feel the pinch as a result of what is happening in other corners of the globe and have to make cuts, we feel it hard.
    I am interested in the report's comments on clustering, which is important. Between 27 and 28 per cent. of Galloway is forested, so forestry is clearly one example of what we can do in our locality. In the past two years, the local enterprise company endeavoured to clear and prepare a site for an Austrian company. Some £3 million was invested in that, only for us to discover in February this year that the company no longer intended to come to the Lockerbie area.
    However, I am pleased to say that another local firm has decided to take part of that site. I am looking forward to tomorrow when we are likely to hear of a £5 million investment on that site with the potential to create some 100 jobs during a three-year period. Initially, there will

    485
    be forestry and sawmill work, which I gather will be developed into manufacturing. However, I will have more details about that tomorrow. I am delighted about that.
    Let me dare to talk about the clustering of education. Dumfries is abuzz at the moment with the potential development of the Crichton site, providing campuses for Glasgow and Paisley universities and Dumfries and Galloway and Bell colleges. I look forward to the day when we can retain local young people by providing higher education opportunities on that site. We need to harness their academic ability and keep the locality vibrant.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston mentioned transport, and I note that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) is in the Chamber. The A75 is not just any old road; it is an important avenue for economic development in our area. The alternative road that leads to a ferry port is the A55 in north Wales, which has received six times as much investment. It is not surprising that people in south-west Scotland feel somewhat disfranchised. If we are to move forward and have genuine inward investment, we must ensure that the infrastructure is right.
    Inward investment does not offer all the answers because my constituency is rural and our challenge is to create an outward-looking and prosperous local economy. We want proper indigenous investment as well as a small amount of inward investment. We want to make that part of Scotland a model for rural development.
    6.26 pm
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I also welcome the Select Committee's report. I was briefly a Committee member but I left before the inquiry began. I shall be brief because many of my colleagues want to speak and there is not much time.
    I am keen to take part in the debate because I was a member of Scottish Enterprise from 1994 to 1997. I was involved in the discussions that led to its creation. Locate in Scotland is part of Scottish Enterprise. It is an important organisation, which has grown from strength to strength. I point out to the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) that we are successful in attracting inward investment not only because of Locate in Scotland but because Scotland is very good at partnership working—that is demonstrated by the fact that we set up Locate in Scotland. The support of embassies throughout the world is crucial to attracting inward investment to Scotland. The increase in inward investment in the years to which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred was due to the creation of the single market and the work of Locate in Scotland. It is important to put that on record. Since 1997, there has been a substantial increase in inward investment of £2 billion, which has created 30,000 jobs in Scotland. The matter is complex.
    I shall briefly consider the summary of the report's conclusions. Transport is vital. Anyone who is familiar with the route from Glasgow to the north of Scotland knows that the A80 through Cumbernauld is the biggest bottleneck in Scotland. Sorting that out is crucial to the development of good infrastructure. I agree with my hon.
    486
    Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) that we need the M74, but I believe that we need the M80 far more.
    I do not understand the reason for the lack of investment in public transport between areas where there are jobs and areas of high unemployment, such as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston. The transport links between those areas are poor, and we should examine that. More funds should be made available, but we must be careful because funds are also important to encouraging and developing indigenous industries. I would be more circumspect, and not simply demand more money for Locate in Scotland. The matter is more complex than that.
    We want to be involved in the debate about the future of Locate in Scotland and Scottish Trade International. That leads us to the future of Scottish Enterprise. The Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish)—has begun that important debate, which must be reasoned and based on knowledge and information.
    Scottish Enterprise is a dynamic organisation that is always ready to move forward, as its chairman, Sir Ian Wood, showed when he gave evidence to the Committee; he agrees with the recommendation to link Locate in Scotland and the STI, although a lot of other issues have to be looked at. We have to move forward continually and my constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth has been successful in attracting inward investment. Significant companies—from not only Japan, but Germany, France, Korea and the United States of America—have located there and recently a successful investment was made in a call centre by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, creating sound financial sector jobs. That is a good example of how we can move forward.
    Our jobcentre staff have shown tremendous commitment. They embraced the new deal from the beginning and took it forward, so much so that we have reduced youth unemployment in my constituency by 72 per cent. The overall reduction is 40 per cent., and we have to take that example to the rest of Scotland and use the information that it provides to take us forward. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Shettleston: we need to use the skill and knowledge that has developed in successful areas to help the areas of Scotland where there is deep poverty. That is how to tackle social exclusion.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, we must recognise that the world economy is changing. For example, in the words of Alf Young in the 10 December edition of The Herald,
    "the new economy based on new technologies and high-value services traded on the Internet, is coming at us like a Caribbean typhoon."
    We have to accommodate all those changes and I believe that Scottish Enterprise has the will to take us forward. It is the right organisation to do so and will be very much involved in the debate, which is about what is best for the people of Scotland and sharing information in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should not follow a hysterical nationalist agenda.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. Douglas Alexander: With some trepidation, I rise to speak: I am not a member the august Scottish Affairs Committee, but I have been emboldened by the characteristically generous remarks of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who is unfortunately not in his place, because I know that he has done a great deal of work on the Committee's report. I agree with its authors that this is a timely point at which to consider the whole issue of inward investment, given that it was prepared at such a critical juncture for our constitutional future.
    The challenge for Members in all parts of the House at this point is to ensure that the new constitutional architecture is able to work to the advantage of the Scottish economy as a whole by successfully securing continued inward investment. I want to give the House a sense of the significance of inward investment to my constituency of Paisley, South: it is central to the Renfrewshire economy, of which my constituency is a part. From a Renfrewshire work force of 121,000, inward investors employ upwards of 13,000 people and 50 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in Renfrewshire come from inward investors. I am proud to note that four significant inward investments have been made in Renfrewshire over the past few months, creating more than 1,000 new jobs.
    Over recent years, Renfrewshire has attracted a range of major direct foreign investment, first in electronics and now in the developing call centre and internet sectors, which were discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). They contribute to Renfrewshire's £5.4 billion of exports, which in turn make up more than 30 per cent. of Scotland's total manufactured exports. The importance of inward investment in not unique to the Renfrewshire economy. As the authors of the Select Committee report confirmed, inward investment is absolutely crucial to the manufacturing base of modern Scotland. The massive job losses suffered in manufacturing areas such as west central Scotland—of which Paisley, South is part—resulted in large measure from the two recessions in as many decades created by the previous Conservative Government. They have increased Scotland's reliance on inward investment over the past two decades.
    As the report makes clear, the importance of foreign direct investment in the Scottish economy can hardly be overstated. There are now nearly 600 overseas-owned concerns in Scotland, providing some 80,000 jobs. Scottish Office evidence given to the Select Committee showed that emphasis was placed on the role of inward investment in helping to restructure Scotland's economy in the context of new, lighter manufacturing activities based on modern technology and scientific developments. For more than 20 years, the electronics industry—Compaq and IBM are close to my constituency—has been the single most important industrial sector for manufacturing inward investment in Scotland.
    The keys to our success in Scotland, in terms of electronics inward investment, are now well established. The rapid growth of the market for electronic products, allied to the presence of a critical mass of related electronics companies in west central Scotland—and,
    488
    indeed, in parts of Fife—combined with high-skill labour markets, have produced attractive locations for inward investment by electronics firms.
    In the face of evidence of the strength of our electronics sector, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that foreign investment now transcends electronics, and extends to a number of parts of the Scottish economy. Foreign companies are investing in sectors as diverse as food and drink, chemicals and petroleum products. As with the rest of the economy, the case for the centrality of inward investment in the Scottish economy is comprehensively made by the report.
    One of the merits of the report is the effectiveness with which it counters the idea advanced by critics of inward investment that a crude choice can be made between an economy that supports inward investment, and an economy that encourages the growth of indigenous enterprises. That was brought home to me by evidence presented to the Committee by Renfrewshire council, which said that inward investors in my area were playing a key role as suppliers to incoming investors. I feel that such a relationship can be mutually beneficial, and can benefit every part of the economy.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: The hon. Gentleman lauds the benefits of inward investment, and I endorse that. We have heard a good deal about the 30,000 jobs created by it, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us how many jobs have been created in his constituency. Can he explain why those jobs, and that inward investment, have not got to Maryhill or Argyll?
    Mr. Alexander: I will answer that by echoing what has been said by others. We must recognise that, despite regional selective assistance and the efforts made by organisations such as Locate in Scotland, at a certain level, inward investment decisions are essentially commercial decisions, determined by the management of private companies. This is radically different from the regional assistance that was offered in the 1960s and 1970s. Nevertheless, I believe that inward investment makes a significant contribution. If the hon. Lady visited Compaq in Renfrewshire and saw the travel-to-work area there, the crude myth that, if a factory is located in a certain place, that is the only part of Scotland that benefits would probably be exploded.
    I feel that the central challenge presented by the report is this: how, with the new constitutional architecture, can not just the Westminster Parliament but the Parliament in Holyrood best improve on the success of inward investment that has already been achieved? I think that two key drivers dictate that success, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. One is economic stability, and the other is political stability. The Government have a proud record of achieving economic stability in their first two years in office: inflation is on target, public borrowing is under control, and unemployment is falling again. I was thankful to see the figures for Scotland yesterday.
    In such a transient international marketplace, the case for economic stability almost goes without saying, but I also want to emphasise the significance of political stability. If we were to compromise economic stability with constitutional instability of the type offered by the

    489
    Opposition. I fear that a heavy price would be paid, not only by employees but by companies throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Swinney: Which party does the hon. Gentleman mean?
    Mr. Alexander: I mean either a party that sought to renegotiate the terms of the treaty of Rome, or a party that sought to renegotiate the terms of the Act of Union. Both pose a significant and profound threat to the people of Scotland.
    In recent elections that the hon. Member for North Tayside is keen not to discuss, we defeated the party that stood for the status quo. I feel that the threat posed to inward investment by a party of separation is profound and real. It is only by an effective and dynamic partnership of both Parliaments that we can move forward. I commend that approach to the House.
    6.40 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: It has been a pleasure to listen to the debate. I apologise if my remarks are brief. It seems to me and, I dare say, to the Secretary of State, that greater benefit is to be derived from listening than from standing up and pontificating. The interesting speech of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) reinforced my view that it was worth waiting for.
    The report is interesting. Some of the areas of interest lie not in the recommendations, but, as often happens in such reports, in reading the body of the text. There are occasions when Select Committees make many pithy comments, but do not wish to embarrass the Government too much, so they do not embody the comments in recommendations and call for a response.
    I was somewhat sorry to see how brief the response from the Westminster Government was on some of the issues. It was confined to the narrow recommendation on transport and wholly avoided some of the comments, particularly those in paragraph 58 concerning taxation.
    Several issues in the report need to be looked: taxation, transport infrastructure, on which we have important responsibilities, and the whole area of concordats, on which I do not wish to dwell at too much length this evening, although I will make one or two comments in view of the remarks by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney).
    The Conservative party—I make it clear to the Secretary of State because, sometimes, it does not yet seem to have got into his head or those of other Labour Members—wants the devolved structure to work. We want the concordats to work. We want Scotland to prosper under devolution. Therefore, the remarks that I shall make are all designed to ensure that that comes about.
    We are concerned that, in relation to taxation, the Committee seems to be letting the Government off the hook in its report. Scotland's problems are not unique. The point is made in the report that Scotland is a peripheral area within the European Union. For that matter, the United Kingdom is a peripheral area within the European Union, except possibly for some small slither of the south-east. Therefore, if we want the country to
    490
    prosper, we will have to make it uniquely attractive for inward investment and to ensure that companies wish to locate here because of the advantages that we can offer.
    Over the past few years, the evidence has been overwhelming: we have been able to do that largely because of an extremely good tax regime. The City of London provides a unique financial sector, which—1 say to the hon. Member for North Tayside—is of inestimable benefit to Scotland, as it is to England. Companies wish to locate because there is a stable financial framework.
    Attracting inward investment is a challenge. The Government cannot escape the taxation issues that are raised in the report. Paragraph 58 spells it out clearly. It goes into the whole issue of how the Republic of Ireland, for example, has succeeded in making itself attractive to inward investment by lowering corporation tax to derisory levels. It also goes into the way in which other countries such as the Netherlands have facilitated inward investment.
    The Government's record on the matter is extremely poor. The rise in overall taxation has taken place under the present Government. It has been commented on again and again, and it is directly affecting business.
    Early in the debate, we looked at the some of the statistical evidence. I regret one part of the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). There is a Kafkaesque delusion about what happened during the 18 years of so-called Conservative misrule. The statistics from Locate in Scotland—
    Ms Rachel Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Grieve: No. I do not have enough time. I apologise, but I simply do not. I know that the Secretary of State and the hon. Lady will understand that.
    The evidence from Locate in Scotland's own statistics is that the surge in investment in the early 1990s was massive and simply cannot be wished away. Moreover, it undoubtedly continued in the first two years of the Government. There is also some evidence that it has diminished. It was suggested in the debate that the south-east Asia crisis is one reason for that decline. Although I do not disagree with that, it is also worth considering whether the fiscal climate that we are creating is attractive to business. Opposition Members question very much whether it is.
    The point was made very forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that the situation on fuel taxation and the fuel escalator has been getting completely out of hand. I am perfectly prepared to accept what the Secretary of State has to say: environmental reasons, among others, made the fuel escalator seem attractive—a point that has been reinforced by Ministers time and again to the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member. However, the evidence has been overwhelming that the escalator has not been producing the desired results, and that it has been having a highly negative effect on business, particularly business located in remote rural areas. Therefore, it should be a particular concern when we consider the economy in Scotland.
    The best way of achieving inward investment is not by all sorts of magical wand-waving and quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations. Although those may be

    491
    able to help, ultimately, if the fiscal and financial climate is not good for inward investment, it will not happen. If the climate is good, inward investment will pour in to most areas, apart from the most deprived.
    I tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that I understand the force of the points that she made. I know her constituency a little, and appreciate that it has been wholly bypassed by the benefits that have come to many other parts of the United Kingdom. That problem undoubtedly needs to be dealt with.
    The report contains an excellent section on a changing world, and paragraphs 19 to 21 go into great detail about the complete change in the world economic climate. One of the points that was made is that it is simply not possible to continue examining economic issues in an old-fashioned way—although, after listening to one or two speeches in this debate, it seems that we are still using blinkered vision that deals far more with the 1960s than with current-day problems.
    The old dividing lines are undoubtedly now blurred, and Scotland—just as much as the rest of the United Kingdom—has to live in a different world. That is why I return to the point on tax that I made to the Secretary of State. If indeed we are over-regulating and putting £30 billion of extra burdens on United Kingdom industry and business, it is not surprising that the inward investment level may be slackening. One does not have to go to south-east Asia to discover the causes of that.
    I shall now deal—I am sorry to have to do it so briefly; I should have liked to go into it in greater detail—with the general matter of the concordats. I tell the hon. Member for North Tayside that the question on the concordats is not whether they are the best thing on offer, but whether, in view of the voluntary nature of the concordats—they cannot be sold as anything else—their best chance of long-term success, facilitating inward investment and not being messed around by the hon. Member for North Tayside and his colleagues, should they ever have the opportunity, is in rapidly establishing them as constitutional convention. The concordats undoubtedly seem to be fairly well drafted, although it is a great pity that we did not have a chance to see them earlier.
    If the concordats are established as convention, there will be a framework in which we are able to operate, and a framework in which a future Conservative Government may well find relations easy with a Scottish Executive who are not necessarily of the same political complexion. The Secretary of State, as a Unionist, should be wishing for such a framework. In those circumstances, therefore, it is a legitimate matter for us to wish to consider.
    We are also bound to express anxieties that there remains an enormous lack of clarity about how the relations work in practice. Picking simply one point—which is slightly peripheral to the issue—as an example, it is slightly unclear whether the Secretary of State for Scotland was ever informed by the Prime Minister that an offer on beef had been made by the French Prime Minister. Although the Secretary of State would have been right to turn down the offer, I do not know whether he was told of it. If that is the level of co-operation, there is legitimate cause for anxiety.
    It is time for me to bring my remarks to a close. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Another time, I shall be far less liberal in giving way to Labour Members and allowing them more time to speak.
    492
    I reserve my final remarks for the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who said that education needed to continue north of the border. I heartily agree. I have visited businesses elsewhere and, if he would like to recommend some in his constituency for me to visit, I should be only too happy to take up his offer.
    I very much hope that devolution continues to succeed, but it will require scrutiny and, above all, a proper fiscal climate for inward investment.
    6.50 pm
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Because of the time constraints and the fact that some speeches have been cut short to allow time for others to contribute, I shall not take interventions. I apologise in advance for that and for the fact that I may not cover everyone.
    I am tempted to respond immediately to the point on beef. I should like to correct the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) on the facts of the case, as I have had to correct his colleagues. No formal offer was made during tripartite discussions. The idea of a herd-based scheme was discussed at the margins with a number of people, including the Scottish Executive's Minister for Rural Affairs, who was aware that the issue was coming up. Had it been put into effect, it would have had no implications in Scotland, because it would have meant abandoning the law and science and everybody in Europe who was supporting us on the date-based scheme and changing to a narrow certified scheme that could have applied only in Northern Ireland. Had it applied to Scotland with a narrow definition of grass-fed cattle, it could have applied to less than 1 per cent. of Scottish cattle. That is why I am so disgusted that the only allies that the French seem to have in Europe on the issue are the Scottish nationalists. I would have been insulted if the Prime Minister had even considered making any formal approaches to any of us to abandon our correct position.
    Now that I have put that right, I shall turn to the report, on which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). A tremendous amount of work went into it and he was central in steering it through the Committee. Inward investment and good export performance are important issues. They are both essential to the health of the Scottish economy, although we should never forget how dependent we are on the indigenous growth of our own industries, small and large.
    The debate is a useful opportunity to set out the basis of the Government's view. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) had it in one. In this post-devolution era, the people of Scotland are interested in successful output and delivery—not endless discussion on the process of devolution, but how it makes day-to-day life better. Central to that is the concept of partnership. The policies of the Government here on fiscal and economic matters, international relations and the key elements of economic infrastructure, such as energy supply, telecommunications and transport links, are crucial to providing the right climate for business investment and success. We need to work in partnership with the Scottish Executive, who are responsible for promoting economic development and trade and providing assistance to business and industry. Both bodies need to work in partnership with the agencies involved in encouraging inward investment and the export trade.

    493
    The results of that partnership approach have been impressive and we abandon it at our peril. That is where my party, both in the Scottish Executive and in the Westminster Government, parts company with the Scottish National party. The illusion that, in place of that partnership, we can throw a ring fence around our economy, that a fortress Scotland policy will protect us from the real world, that conflict instead of co-operation will provide cohesion and that grudge and grievance are an adequate analysis of the world economy—
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Wrong.
    Dr. Reid: Absolutely. That analysis is wrong on every count, but they are all the policies of the Scottish National party. The idea that continual constitutional instability will be the basis for economic stability is a cruel illusion that will not be bought by the people of Scotland.
    Mr. Swinney: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Dr. Reid: I am sorry, but I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He understands why. He is being selective in his interventions. I notice that he was wise enough not to involve himself in the compact disc recorded by some of his colleagues. Presumably, either he chose not to take part, or he was disqualified on the basis that he could sing.
    Since we were elected in May 1997, the Government's sound management of public finances and our fiscal and economic policies have produced the very conditions of economic stability that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield described as essential. From May 1997 to date, inward investment in Scotland has amounted to more than £2 billion and an estimated 30,000 jobs. By any standards, that is an impressive performance.
    Figures published by the Invest in Britain Bureau show that, although it accounts for less than 9 per cent. of the UK population, Scotland has consistently over the past few years secured between 12 and 20 per cent. of all inward investment projects attracted to the UK, and between 17 and 25 per cent. of the new jobs associated with such projects.
    In the five years to March 1999, Locate in Scotland recorded 436 inward investment projects, involving planned investment of no less than £7 billion associated with the expected creation or safeguarding of nearly 68,000 jobs. That is the record of success of the co-operation that would be put in peril by the continual instability that the Scottish National party represents as the way forward.
    In 1998-99, Locate in Scotland and its partners helped to attract to Scotland a total of 9,041 planned new jobs. So far this financial year, 1999-2000, inward investors have already—in only nine months—announced plans to create a total of 8,849 new jobs in Scotland. So Locate in Scotland, far from declining—as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggested—is well on its way to beating its performance last year.
    It is not just the statistics that are encouraging. The range of companies and their activities demonstrate a robust portfolio. Project sizes have ranged from 25 to 1,500 jobs in both the central belt and in rural areas.
    494
    Of course, it is not all one way. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) mentioned how some areas have missed out, and I am the first to accept that. That is why the measures brought in by this Government on child benefit, the working families tax credit and the new deal are so important, as is the work carried out by the Scottish Executive on social exclusion and poverty.
    The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) mentioned a case from his area. I accept that companies will sometimes relocate—they have done from my constituency, including Cummings and Caterpillar. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that companies are closely monitored. If they go elsewhere in the UK, they are monitored by the DTI to ensure that the money provided by this Government is not used merely to assist the geographical movement of similar jobs.
    We have had a short but significant debate. I pay tribute to the work force in Scotland who, along with our infrastructure, education system and environment, are one of our greatest means of attracting people to Scotland.
    We now move to another stage of the devolution settlement—not only the concordats, but the joint action committees. We have established co-operation and partnership in practice, and we are aiming to deliver. We now move from the joint action committee on poverty to that on the knowledge economy. That subject is vital, as is the fact that we are working in partnership. That partnership approach will ultimately be backed by, and to the benefit of, the people of Scotland.
    It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (4) and (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates) to put at that hour.

ESTIMATES, 1999-2000

  Class III, Vote 6
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £511,039,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on support to nationalised industries; grants to Railtrack, British Rail, London Transport, Docklands Light Railway, DoA Ltd; MRPS grant; payments in respect of expenditure relating to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; expenditure connected with the privatisation of British Rail Business; other consultancies; expenditure relating to Commission for Integrated Transport; capital expenditure by transport industries funded by EC grants; railway industry and National Freight Company pensions funds; National Freight Company travel concessions; rebate of fuel duty to bus operators; ports and shipping services; Royal Travel; miscellaneous services; civil aviation services; international aviation services; transport security; freight grants, and expenditure associated with the non rail privatisation programme.

  Class XIII, Vote 1
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £5,810,419.000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Scotland Office on administrative costs
  and operational costs; electoral publicity; the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland; other devolution costs, including the panel to oversee the cross-party electoral expenditure agreement and on a grant to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
  It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraphs (1) and (2) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates etc.) to put at that hour.

  ESTIMATES, 1999–2000 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 2000 an additional number not exceeding 10,620 all ranks be maintained for Service in the Reserve Land Forces.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1999–2000
  Resolved,
  That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,773,575,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2000, as set out in HC 4 of Session 1999–2000.

  ESTIMATES, 2000–01 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £101,653,019,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for civil and defence services in Classes I and II; Class III Votes 1 to 5 and Votes 7 to 12; Classes IV to XII; Classes XIV to XVIII; and Classes XVIII, A and XVIII, B for the year ending on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 5, 6 and 7 of Session 1999–2000.
  Ordered,
  That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Andrew Smith, Dawn Primarolo, Miss Melanie Johnson and Mr. Stephen Timms do prepare and bring it in.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 2000 and 2001: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time this day, and to be printed [Bill 32].

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [14 December] and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

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

  LEGAL AID AND ADVICE
  That the draft Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.

Dangerous Driving (Sentences)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
7.2 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I am pleased to have secured this debate. The case that I am about to recount was instigated by the poignant and completely unnecessary death of a young police officer in my constituency in April, but the injustice that it represents will be familiar to many hon. Members in constituencies throughout the country.
Last year, I secured an Adjournment debate on death on the roads in my constituency, but that concerned accidents on a dangerous stretch of the A27 between Lancing and Worthing, whereas what occurred last April was entirely avoidable: the tragic death of a police officer at the hands of a convicted felon, driving recklessly and dangerously.
Just before midnight on the evening of Saturday 24 April, PC Jeff Tooley, aged 26, a police officer based at Shoreham and living in my constituency, was carrying out his duty perfectly properly, manning a speed check on the Brighton road. He was wearing a highly visible fluorescent uniform and holding a torch. In no way could he be described as the author of his own misfortune. He moved out to stop a white Renault van clocked at 51 mph in a 30 mph zone; but the van did not stop or decrease its speed. Subsequently, it hit him, lifting him off the ground and depositing his body about 70 ft further along the road, before speeding off.
It was claimed that the 48-year-old driver of the van, from Brighton, had been drinking and fell asleep at the wheel, but subsequently the van was found burned out in nearby Hove: hardly the act of a driver suffering from tiredness and drunkenness. Some 12 hours after the incident, PC Jeff Tooley succumbed to his injuries and died in Worthing hospital. I am grateful for the comments of the Minister at the time, who paid tribute to PC Tooley when I raised the case on the Monday immediately after that tragic event.
The case gained a high profile because the victim was a police officer doing his duty. However, the circumstances and subsequent judicial procedures should be viewed no less seriously than if it had been a pedestrian hit by the van while crossing the road on his or her way home.
PC Tooley is said to be the first serving police officer in the Sussex constabulary to have lost his life in the line of duty. His family and his colleagues at Shoreham police station and throughout the Sussex force were understandably devastated. At a packed funeral in Chichester cathedral, which I attended, seasoned and long-serving police officers, including the chief constable himself were reduced to tears. Jeff Tooley was greatly liked in his force. He was described as an experienced, committed and highly motivated officer. He had held a burning ambition to become a police officer and joined the force in 1990. He had an exemplary record and a promising career ahead of him. At his funeral, an epitaph to Constable CT483 read simply,
"When one of us falls, the rest of us stumble."
The waste of such a promising young life, with so much to live for, was distressing enough, but the grief felt by family and friends has been compounded by the
498
subsequent shortcomings of the justice system in dealing with the driver who caused PC Tooley's death. His family were also especially distressed that his organs could not be used to save the life of another, because the guilty party fled the scene of the crime and PC Tooley's body had to be made available for legal reasons.
Three days after Jeff Tooley's death, the killer turned himself in, although by that stage the police were well aware of his identity. At the subsequent hearing, he denied causing death by dangerous driving and performing an act intended to pervert the course of justice—setting fire to the van—and pleaded not guilty. However, on 11 November before the case came to court, the killer changed his plea to guilty. Subsequently, he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment.
The maximum penalty available to the sentencing judge was just 10 years, and he was obliged to reduce that because of the 11th-hour change of plea to guilty. Indeed, up to 1993, the maximum penalty was just five years. After time spent on remand is taken into account, the killer will be eligible for parole in just three years. That is despite the fact that he has a long criminal record, stretching back to 1966, including a seven-year prison sentence in the 1970s for attempted robbery and eight years in the 1980s for robbery.
The comments of the sentencing judge struck a chord with many people who followed the case. Judge Anthony Thorpe at Chichester crown court said:
"Parliament has decided that the maximum penalty for death by dangerous driving is 10 years, whereas the maximum penalty for burglary is 14 years…that might strike the public as an odd approach to the value placed on human life."
I agree, as do the many hon. Members—of all parties, and from Sussex and the rest of the country—who have signed my early-day motion on the subject.
If that criminal had stolen PC Tooley's car that night, or broken into his home but left him unscathed, he would have faced a sentence of up to 14 years' imprisonment, instead of a maximum of 10. Patently, there is a grave inconsistency in our legal system's treatment of dangerous driving offences. It is increasingly perceived to be unfair and to undermine the seriousness with which that crime is taken and prosecuted. This case has shown that clearly and that is why we believe that the courts should have available the possibility of imposing a life sentence on the worst cases of death by dangerous driving. This case would appear to qualify as just such a one.
My view is born not out of some knee-jerk wish to seek revenge but out of a desire to ensure that dangerous driving is taken far more seriously as the life-threatening act that it can be, and to ensure that the severity of the penalties available act as a real deterrent and highlight the unacceptability of dangerous driving which, in the extreme, can lead to an innocent person's death. The killer may well not have set out to cause the death of a policeman on that night but, despite the lack of obvious intent, someone who spends an evening drinking heavily in a pub and then speeds home on a dangerous stretch of road at 51 mph should be no less responsible for his actions and the result of his recklessness than if he had set out to cause the death with intent. A motor vehicle in irresponsible hands is a lethal weapon—no less potent than a gun or a knife. In this day and age, citizens who qualify to drive and exercise that right should be fully responsible for the effects of exercising that right.

499
Let us consider the statistics. Between 1993 and 1996, the average penalty for death by dangerous driving was just 33.7 months. That compares, over the same period, with the average penalty for manslaughter of 62 months. Between 1993 and 1996, there were 1,989 convictions for the charge of death by dangerous driving, but only 47 of those cases were given terms of imprisonment of five years or more. In fact, the terms had been rising, but fell back in 1996.
More recently in 1997, 205 people were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, but the average sentence for the 125 of them convicted in Crown courts was again just 33 months.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton: May I proceed and perhaps give way later?
At a time when road traffic deaths are falling, the number of successful prosecutions for death by dangerous driving seems to be falling disproportionately faster, and the subsequent sentences remain stubbornly unconvincing. It is clear that, because it is often difficult to get a charge of death by dangerous driving to stick, the charge often drops to the lesser crime of careless driving. That may have been the point that the hon. Gentleman was about to make. Careless driving is the more usual offence brought after a road death and it relates only to the standard of driving and excludes the death.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) who highlighted the gap in the law and expressed the need for an intermediate offence between death by dangerous driving and driving without due care and attention. I was happy to support the campaign that she launched, together with her local newspaper the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, earlier in the year. I thank the road traffic victim charity, RoadPeace, for the information that it has provided. It says:
"The principle that a driver is not responsible for the consequences of his actions is contrary to the public interests—it must have an effect on driver behaviour."
Some experts say that the current penalty system for death by dangerous driving militates against the crime being properly investigated with the necessary resources. Nicholas Atkinson QC believes that too many cases involving causing death on the roads are not properly investigated and often end up being charged as driving without due care and attention. Increasing the maximum available sentence could mean that greater attention would be paid to the investigation, the prosecution and the sentencing of offenders involved in death crashes.
The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, in a long report published in July which I commend and which was entitled "Road Traffic Law and Enforcement", agrees with that view. It claims:
"Bad driving offences, especially those involving death, are often not being dealt with in a manner which signals to society that such offences are a serious matter."
It must be right that the appropriate charge should be one that makes the death and culpability for the death the issue, rather than determining a standard of driving. In many cases, the circumstances of the incident include
500
matters such as leaving the scene of the crime, as happened in the case of PC Tooley, that do not relate to the standard of driving.
Making a life sentence award available to a judge, purely at his or her discretion, for the very worst cases would not tie his or her hands but rather enable the courts to recognise the real seriousness of the crime of causing death by dangerous driving because, as the Jeff Tooley case so vividly illustrates, low sentences are a symptom of the low priority given to death and injury on our roads, not the totality of the problem.
In the United States, for example, and in many European Union countries, a charge of homicide would result, and it is time that we empowered the courts to send out a clear signal in this country that there will be zero tolerance of such behaviour and that responsible, law-abiding citizens have a right to protection from those who persist in flouting the law in such an extreme manner.
The Jeff Tooley case has struck a particularly strong chord with many people in Sussex. I am grateful to the local media, particularly the Brighton Evening Argus, for giving the case such a high profile. The Argus launched its "Justice for Jeff' campaign last month in horror at the apparent injustice meted out to the seasoned criminal who killed him. Like me, the local media want life sentences available for the worst cases of causing death by dangerous driving.
Such a change in the law will not, alas, bring back my constituent or the many hundreds of others killed in appalling circumstances while lawfully going about their business or performing their jobs. Some of the worst cases involve children who come into contact with dangerous drivers while crossing the road on the presumed safety of a pedestrian crossing.
However, a change in the law might just act as a deterrent. Making dangerous drivers think twice about the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour might prevent more such tragic waste of promising young lives. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet a delegation made up of my constituents, families of victims, road safety groups and the police—all of whom support the change in the law that I have set out.
If the Government take this anomaly in the law seriously, and if we make progress towards achieving the change that I have described, my constituents at least will be able to say that justice for Jeff has been achieved in part, and that something positive will have come from his senseless and tragic death.
7.16 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I cannot call the hon. Lady unless I have had notice that both the hon. Member who has secured the Adjournment debate and the Minister agree to her participation. It is a courtesy to let such participation be known to the Chair beforehand, but, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and the Minister are both signifying that they agree to her making a contribution, I call the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton).
Mrs. Brinton: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being remiss in not contacting you on this matter,

501
although I have been in touch with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and my hon. Friend the Minister.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on securing a debate on this important subject, and on the way in which he has pressed his case tonight. I fully support his contention that the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is inconsistent with the penalties for other crimes, such as those that he has described eloquently to the House this evening.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of, and has supported, the campaign being run by the Peterborough Evening Telegraph in my constituency to change the law in a subtly different way. I am also aware of, and support, the excellent campaign "Justice for Jeff' that he is spearheading, along with the Brighton Evening Argus, which deals with dangerous driving matters. The hon. Gentleman provided very able support earlier this year to the campaign in Peterborough, which aims to increase the maximum penalty available in such cases, and to make the whole range of penalties fit the crime.
The Evening Telegraph began its campaign to bring justice to the families of victims such as Glenn Jones, a 24-year-old Peterborough man killed on the road. The driver's cursory and trivial punishment was a fine of £250 and nine penalty points on his licence. What price human life unless we change the law?
The hon. Gentleman is at the forefront of all campaigns to make our roads safer. I hope that the debate this evening and the additional matters that I have raised briefly will find a resonance with my hon. Friend the Minister.
7.18 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on the very effective and powerful way in which he put his case, for which I have immense sympathy. I assure him that I should be more than happy to receive a delegation, led by him, of those involved in the "Justice for Jeff" campaign.
Since I have been a Minister, I have received a delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton). I have also met a number of the various other organisations campaigning for change in this area. The House may be interested to know that this is not a matter raised by only a few isolated hon. Members: more than 20 hon. Members have written to Home Office Ministers over the past year or so about similar cases in their constituencies. Concern over the matter is widespread, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it in this debate. He made a powerful speech.
I should like to take this opportunity to express the condolences of the whole House to the family and friends of Jeff Tooley, whose life was lost in such a terrible way. The fact that he was a policeman means that the force of the tragedy is that much greater for me, given my responsibilities for the police. However, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, many people lose their lives in that tragic and appalling manner.
The criminal law can contribute to a response to this terrible state of affairs. I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject this evening. No one can dispute the
502
seriousness of the consequences when death is the result of a crash on the roads. Criminal law must address the extent of the offender's culpability. The Government have the duty to make available to the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the courts offences appropriate to the degree of culpability of the driver in the circumstances in question. As the hon. Gentleman said, in some cases there is a difficulty that, in law, the offender has been defined as acting carelessly rather than intentionally, but the consequences of his act are disproportionately serious. That has given rise to the concerns raised in today's debate. It is especially likely that families will feel aggrieved at the outcome of such a case.
It is worth setting out the current framework of the law. The North committee looked at all these matters and reported on this issue in 1988. It addressed concerns that the law relating to road traffic accidents had not developed satisfactorily. The committee gave detailed consideration, among a wide range of other things, to the possibility of creating a new offence of causing death by careless driving, but concluded that it would be wrong to visit on a driver severe penalties for unforeseen tragic consequences if his or her actions were careless.
During the past 10 years or so, that view has been accepted by Governments. Where the driving which resulted in death is thought to be only careless, there is no causing death offence, unless the offender was driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. By 1991, a consensus had emerged that the consumption of drink or drugs before driving carelessly was an aggravating factor which justified treating this behaviour more severely if a death were to result. The Government are actively reviewing the question of whether a new offence of causing death by careless driving should be introduced. The arguments are powerful and need to be reconsidered in the light of the whole debate that has taken place.
Mr. Miller: I have been following the debate with great interest in view of my role in RoadPeace. Will my hon. Friend re-examine the March 1996 Law Commission report on involuntary manslaughter? It may provide the answer to some of the searching questions asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton).
Mr. Clarke: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he and RoadPeace have been doing to raise these issues. He makes a serious suggestion which needs active consideration.
Within the current framework of law, the CPS role is to decide how to view the case. To do this, it must look at the evidence and decide whether sufficient evidence to establish guilt of a particular offence exists. It is a matter for the CPS, which is independent of government, and it is not appropriate for me or any Minister to comment on or interfere in the decisions on the charges to bring in a particular case.
The Attorney-General is involved if there is unduly lenient sentencing which could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. Courts do not always make full use of their powers. The Attorney-General has powers to refer cases of indictable offences, including causing death by dangerous driving, to the Court of Appeal where it appears that the sentence was unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal then has power

503
to increase the sentence. That must be done within 28 days of the last sentence in the case being passed. The Court of Appeal can impose a higher sentence only if it finds that the sentence was unduly lenient.
I now come to sentencing guidelines. Obviously, there is a wide range of practice across the country on these matters. The Government are keen to promote consistency in sentencing. It is only right that offenders should be treated equitably and that inappropriate regional variations in sentencing should be avoided wherever possible. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established provisions which place a statutory duty on the Court of Appeal whenever it receives an appeal against sentence to consider whether it should frame a new sentencing guideline or revise an existing guideline.
The Act established a sentencing advisory panel to provide advice on such guidelines to the Court of Appeal. The panel will provide the court with statistical information about existing sentencing and consult a range of interested parties. The panel can act in three sets of circumstances: when advised by the Court of Appeal that it intends to frame a guideline, at its own instigation, and when the Home Secretary directs it to provide views to the court. This is an important development since the 1998 Act, designed to establish consistency of sentencing. It is a matter for consideration whether such sentences might be examined by the panel.
The Government are responsible for ensuring that the courts have the powers that they need to deal with the cases before them. We believe that the law should provide appropriate sanctions to enable the courts to deal severely with instances of bad driving that are worse than careless and in which the offender bears a greater responsibility for his actions.
Within the broad statutory limit set by Parliament, individual sentences are a matter for the courts alone, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Of course, the independence of our courts is an important principle. It is not appropriate, therefore, for me to interfere in specific cases and sentences passed in particular circumstances. However, I believe that Parliament and the public are entitled to expect the courts to impose long and heavy sentences in serious cases.
The maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving or causing death while under the influence of drink or drugs is 10 years' imprisonment. That was doubled from five years as recently as 1993. The maximum penalty for dangerous driving is two years' imprisonment. Careless driving carries a maximum fine of £2,500 and an obligatory endorsement of the offender's driving licence. I can well understand why, when someone causes a death by careless driving and a fine of this kind is imposed, real despair and anger is felt among the families concerned. It is an understandable response, which I share.
The Government decided to conduct a review of penalties in road traffic offences, which is taking place. It will include consideration of the maximum penalty for
504
causing death by dangerous driving, and we shall deal with some of the issues discussed. The provisions will, I hope, lead to more comprehensive sentencing guidelines, which will ensure greater consistency in sentencing. The offence of causing death by dangerous driving could be one of the offences considered in this way.
The Government are determined to address these issues very seriously as a matter of priority. They represent an important element in public confidence in the criminal justice system, and need to be properly addressed. I assure the House that the opinions expressed in the contributions to this evening's debate will be fully considered in the review.
Lord Whitty today announced a new speed camera funding system, with eight pilot schemes in Essex, Northampton, Thames valley, Nottingham, south Wales, Cleveland, Lincolnshire and Strathclyde. It will establish a much more coherent and effective regime for testing for people who are speeding, and will be able to identify and, we hope, deter speeding. That is an important and positive development, which will inhibit the reckless and speedy driving that is sometimes the immediate cause of the accidents that cause the tragedies which have been discussed.
Finally, I want to mention research. Road traffic law should provide a framework for safe driving, lay down clear standards for driver behaviour and deter drivers from breaching those standards. The Transport Research Laboratory of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is carrying out research on behalf of DETR into the way in which bad driving cases proceed through the criminal justice system. It is the intention of the research to obtain evidence as to whether there is sufficiently clear guidance on the law and its purpose, and how that affects the choice of penalty.
The researchers are looking in detail at the decisions taken by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts. We expect to have the results next year, when the Government will be in a better position to judge changes in this area of law and its operation.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham secured this debate. The Government are fully in sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others during the debate. My Department and I will continue to work with colleagues from other Departments to ensure that we get our policy right in tackling these important and serious issues. I am glad to have had an opportunity to respond to the debate, and I am delighted to assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall receive a delegation to discuss the matter more widely and will continue to meet and discuss the issue with a wide range of different organisations.
In moving on these matters, it is exceptionally important to be in line with the body of public opinion. Law should properly reflect what people feel. That is why this debate has been important. The whole range of views expressed will be fully taken into account.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Child Care
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. McNulty.]
2.30 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): First, I apologise to those who will speak in the debate and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I shall leave in about an hour. A cross-party delegation is coming from Cornwall to discuss what it considers to be the area's unfavourable financial circumstances. I need to go and persuade members of the delegation that their circumstances are in fact perfectly fair and perfectly favourable. I apologise for that, but the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), will listen to the whole debate and respond in due course.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss what I am sure all parties will agree is the important subject of early years and child care. It is important for many reasons. First and foremost, those of us with a brief in education and raising standards know that all the evidence shows that investment in the early years is investment well made. That is especially true for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, whose parents are unable to give them the support that all parents want to give but some find difficult to provide.
The second reason why the issue is important is that we live in changing times. Parents—both mothers and fathers—want to choose how they live their lives. They want a family and working opportunities; indeed, for some, that is not a choice, but a necessity. There have been changes in social circumstances, and sometimes family members do not live together or close to each other as they did a generation ago. Such changes have, rightly, put child care much higher up the political agenda. I suspect that those words, if not the rest of what I have to say, will find agreement across all parties.
The Government have established child care as a major strand of their school standards agenda, of their family-friendly policy and of economic and competitive policy. To coin a phrase, it requires joined-up thinking more than many other areas of Government activity. Despite that, when we took office two and a half years ago, we inherited a system that was deeply fragmented and that had not made the best use of the resources that had been allocated to it. It was in disarray. In our first few months in government we dismantled the nursery voucher scheme, and we were able to use the money that was made available, in the first instance, to provide nursery places for all four-year-olds.
During the past two decades, under the previous Government, whether one got an early-years place depended on where one lived rather than on whether one needed a place. If we consider the spread of early-years
112WH
places across the country at that time, we find a good match between Labour-controlled local authorities and areas with a high percentage of three and four-year-olds in nursery places. That political argument apart, it was clear that parents in many areas wanted access to early years and child care, but there were insufficient places.
Our main aims and objectives for early years and child care policies have been to increase the number of places and to ensure that that increase is based on good-quality places. It is no good expanding the number of places if we put more children in settings in which the quality of provision is poor.
We have recognised that many people who work in the early-years sector do a good job and have a good qualification. However, there is not the same semblance of order to qualifications in the early-years sector as in many other vocational areas. Over the past two and a half years, we have sought to bring some semblance of order to early-years qualifications. We want to do that not only for those who work in early years, but for those who use the service. It is especially important to ensure that there are avenues of progression for those with an early-years qualification—it is not a qualification that leads nowhere.
We were keen to bring together early-years education and child care. There is sometimes an academic argument about the difference between the two. However, under-fives probably make no distinction between child care and education. Parents need both and need to fit them in with the rest of their lives.
After two and a half years, how can we judge whether we have made progress on those objectives? We are pleased to say that one of the first pledges that was fully delivered was to provide a part-time place for all four-year-olds who wanted one. I want to pay tribute now and in many other comments to the early-years development and child care partnerships, which brought that about. It was difficult in the first year to move from a system of early-years provision that was based on competition to one that was based on co-operation. The same providers who had been competing for children because children meant money were asked a short time later to work together to plan places across an area. Different partnerships succeeded at different rates and at different levels and some did better than others in the first year. However, I am grateful that all but two produced a partnership plan that we could approve in the first year. That made it possible for our four-year-olds to have places.
We have now set another objective and want to double the number of places for our three-year-olds by 2002. Currently, we are on target to ensure that 50 per cent. of our three-year-olds have access to a free early education place by 2000 and 2001. We are also on target to double the figure for provision from 34 to 66 per cent. by 2002. We have done that in two ways. It was important to target the first tranche of money at areas of significant deprivation and challenge, where the impact would be greatest. However, by next year, every area will have had some money to expand the number of places for three-year-olds. By 2002, a uniform 66 per cent. will not have been achieved across the board in every local authority. Rather, I suspect and hope that some local authorities will make almost universal provision for three-year-olds. However, some will not.

113WH
None the less, the pledge is that we shall double provision to 66 per cent. I pay tribute again to the partnerships. In their second year of operation, they were asked to take on planning for three-year-olds in addition to continued planning for four-year-olds.
We have also acted on the qualifications. It is easy for politicians to talk about making sense of early-years qualifications, but it is much more difficult for practitioners, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and all the training boards to do that. I am delighted that we are beginning to make progress in that regard. The process will be on-going and we shall constantly want to examine qualifications.
We shall also want to do some work on the next stage of our agenda. The Green Paper on the reform of the teaching profession made it clear that my aim is for people to be able to go into early-years education and to gain any qualification and then to have the opportunity to be a fully qualified teacher if they so wish. The skills, attributes and experience that people gain from working in early-years settings mean that they would make good teachers. Although we need the most skilled people where their skills are most important, in the early years we currently have a range of people with perhaps lower-level skills and qualifications than we would want.
Hon. Members will welcome the fact that we shall introduce legislation next week in the House of Lords to ensure that we have a coherent inspection framework. Fragmentation in provision was mirrored in the inspection framework. We cannot really tell providers, "Work together in the interests of all the children in your area. By the way, we are going to inspect you using different standards." That approach has put extra pressure on those who work in the early-years service, and our proposals have been welcomed.
I suppose that the same is true in early years as in every other area of education: there is already excellent provision. Good practice and first-class practitioners exist across the country in urban and rural areas, cities and towns and in authorities that are controlled by the Labour party, the Conservative party or even the Liberal Democrats. As always, the challenge is to ensure that we raise the standards of those who are poor to the level of the best. We have tried in early years, as we have across the school agenda, to enable those who are good to share their good practice with others.
The early excellence centres are one important initiative. They are examples of good quality; they are beacons, which show what can be done. It would have been easy for them to keep that extra resource to themselves, but the first tranche of early excellence centres, which have been designated for 18 months to two years, have done outward-looking work, sharing their good practice with others. We could put everything on paper and write documents about raising standards. However, I suspect that it is better to allow those practitioners needing support to look at centres that work well and learn from them. Networks have been built up by good practitioners sharing their practice with others, and I hope that that model will spread in future.
We pledged to designate 25 early-excellence centres by 2002. If memory serves me right—if not, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will doubtless correct me—
114WH
we have designated 20 already. That is huge progress in two and a half years: we have ensured that centres of excellence exist and serve others.
Finally, it is difficult to bring together early-years provision and child care. It is even more of a challenge to bring together early-years provision, child care, health, special needs provision, support for parents and other essential early-years elements so that we support families bringing up children. One of our proudest achievements in relation to that is sure start, which is one of the best examples of Government and Whitehall interdepartmental work. Departments began by asking: "What do families and children aged nought to three need? How can we organise ourselves to best deliver that?" I very much hope—as does the Secretary of State—that evaluation of sure start will result in a model to be taken elsewhere.
We are anxious that support such as early-years provision does not stop when children reach the age of five because the needs of parents and children continue until the latter reach eight, 14, or become independent. In that age range, we have achieved extra child care places in after-school provision and provided more out-of-school learning opportunities. In two and a half years, we have got rid of competition, introduced cooperation, raised core standards and improved quality in early-years provision. We have also begun to make nought to eight provision coherent, meeting a range of needs for young people and their parents.
We acknowledge that young people's needs go beyond that; indeed, the ideal is a seamless service. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are reporting on progress so far, which has been good and has been noted by many working in the sector, parents and children—the latter being those who will benefit.
I have paid tribute to the work done by early-years partnerships, who were groups of people making decisions. I also want to pay tribute to a wide range of early-years providers in the maintained, private and voluntary sectors, along with those who care for children—whether singly or in large groups. That is a diverse group and long may that continue. The differences between those people are important, so our challenge is to use all their skills, experience and anything else that they may offer. We must send them a clear message that they are part of an overall policy to provide high-quality child care—from early years until education—for an important group of people to whom we have a great obligation: youngsters aged nought to five.
2.44 pm
Mr. James Clappison: I join the Minister in welcoming this opportunity to debate an important matter. I, too, recognise how important this subject is to many people, including working families. Indeed, I shall declare common ground, as the Opposition share the objective of offering high-quality child care provision. The Minister spoke about the importance of such provision; indeed, she described it as a major strand of Government policy. I am therefore mildly curious—no more than that—about why the Government chose to debate the matter in Westminster Hall.

115WH
Having joined the Minister on common ground, recognising the significance of the matter and sharing objectives, I shall look at the whole child care picture and raise issues of concern to many in the field. We should look not only at certain projects—however good—but at what is happening in all parts of the country and throughout child care provision.
The Government are not short of promises in that area, especially on making provision for child care for those aged nought to eight. Indeed, the Minister recognised the importance of that for working families. In "Meeting the Childcare Challenge", published in May 1998, the Prime Minister said that the Government wanted to improve provision and create
"more than 50,000 childcare places this year".
The Government's annual report for 1998–99 promises
"the first ever national childcare strategy"
and
"up to a million new childcare places".
In the context of those promises, the expectations that they create and the projects mentioned by the Minister, we want to know how well those pledges have been delivered in 1999, the Government's year of delivery.
I noted the pretty picture painted by the Minister. However, the most recent statistics from the Department for Education and Employment by no means paint so rosy a picture. Child care provision for children under eight is divided into several sectors, and a distinction is made between provisions for children under eight and for children aged five to seven, who are, of course, of school age. On provision for the undereights—to which the Minister referred—statistics for child care provision in Britain show that the number of places in day nurseries has increased by 24,000. However, Sir Alan, they also show that the number of places in playgroups has decreased by 36,000 or so, and that the number of places provided by child minders has gone down. Therefore, the whole picture shows an overall reduction in the number of child care places of about 45,000. That is far from the increase of 50,000 places promised by the Government. That matter has been debated before, and was dealt with by one of the Minister's colleagues.
The figures that I gave do not take account of the number of places in nursery schools and classes, which went down slightly last year, apparently for the first time since 1992. Should the Ministers disagree with any of those statistics, I would be happy to give way or listen once they have further information. However, there is an important case to answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): We are used to many hon. Members abusing statistics, but the hon. Gentleman takes the biscuit. The expansion of child care places is about places for children. The hon. Gentleman referred to settings in which there will always be a variation. The number of places in playgroups, for example, always goes up and down—I shall return to that later. Using the overall statistics for
116WH
1998–99, which I have before me, I calculated that the number of places available to children increased by almost 12 per cent. Places for children count.
Mr. Clappison rose—
Mr. Phil Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) allow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) to complete his response? When he does so, he may allow another intervention.
Mr. Clappison: I have been accused of abusing statistics and talking about settings rather than places, Sir Alan, but I was using the statistics prepared by the Under-Secretary's Department. The hon. Lady waves her paper. If she looks at the right-hand column, she will see that the statistics I have given are described as places. Places for day nurseries are up from 223,000 to 247,000—[Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Lady is with me. Places in playgroups are down from 383,800 to 347,200 and places—not settings—with child minders are down from 370,000 to 336,000. If one takes into account the places in day nurseries and day schools, which do not appear here—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Lady nods. I do not want to labour this, but which of those statistics from her Department's press release is wrong?
Ms Hodge: I am sure that we do not want to spend the whole afternoon exchanging statistics. The hon. Gentleman has been selective. He has not referred to the expansion of places in out-of-school clubs or on holiday schemes. The massive expansion in nursery places for three and four-year-olds is not included in the statistics. Honestly, this is an abuse of the figures and it does not reflect the reality.
Mr. Clappison: That, Sir Alan—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has now thrice made the same small error. The form of address to the Chair in this place is Deputy Speaker; we are not in Committee.
Mr. Clappison: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Under-Secretary criticises me for presenting statistics in that form, but that is the form in which they appear in her Department's press release. It makes the distinction, which I made at the outset and which the hon. Lady would have heard had she been listening, between the provision for children aged under eight and that for those aged from five to seven. There has been an increase. The largest part of that increase is due to holiday schemes, which are rather different from the provision for children under eight—the sort of provision that the Minister for School Standards spoke about.
If the Under-Secretary adds up the figures in the way that the Government collect them, there is a reduction of about 45,000. I am trying to be fair as I am taking into account and making allowance for what the Government said earlier about this. The Member for

117WH
Pontypridd, when he was an Education Minister, wrote to one of my colleagues to try to explain the reduction when it was first drawn to the Government's attention.
Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clappison: I will when I have completed this point.
What the then Minister said is completely different from what the Under-Secretary has said now. He did not quibble about the statistics, but sought to give an explanation. I am about to move on to that, so I think that the Minister was a bit early with her intervention. I shall give way to her hon. Friend unless she wants to hear my point first.
Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have contributed to a huge expansion in opportunities for parents to use child care in its many forms? In the unlikely event of there being a general election tomorrow and the Conservative party winning it, how many more places on top of the Government's already expanded services to parents would his party provide?
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady was a bit late with the first part of her intervention as I had anticipated that, and she was a bit early with the second. It is early in the political cycle to hear that point—[Interruption.] I can understand the hon. Lady not wanting to hear the statistics, but I shall give the explanation that was given by her colleague. An important point about the position of playgroups in all of this was completely omitted by the Minister for School Standards in her opening speech. The explanation given by her hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd when he was Education Minister was rather different. He conceded that there was a decline in the number of child-minding places, with a fall from 370,700 in 1998 to 337,000 in 1999. Incidentally, I hope that the Under-Secretary will now abandon her point about the statistics being bogus, as her colleague did not accept it.
He said that the decline in child-minding places was
"due to a number of factors. In particular we know that in the past lists of childminders maintained by local authorities have not always been up to date. The first ever audit of local childcare provision carried out by the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships has led local authorities to update their databases. This meant that some childminders who were still registered but had ceased to operate were removed from the register."
He added:
"This is good news for parents. They can now access accurate lists of local childminders which helps speed up the process of finding suitable childcare."
It is difficult for me to say at this point whether that explanation is right. I understand from Hertfordshire county council that its latest figures will show a continuing fall in the number of child minder places available, which would rather undermine the assertion that the child minding decline was a once-and-for-all phenomenon caused by an updating of the database. Even if we accept the Minister's explanation that the
118WH
child minder places were all lost because of a revision of the register, there is still a reduction in the number of child care places in the last year for which figures are available, albeit a slight one. It certainly contrasts with the Prime Minister's assertion that 50,000 more places were being created over the same period.
That brings us to the important point about the position of playgroups and pre-school learning in that setting. That reduction is one of the most striking features of the whole picture of child care provision and those involved in child care will follow the debate with great interest. They will want to hear Ministers say a little more about playgroups, other than applauding them for the undoubted hard work that they do and have done in the context of partnerships. They will want to know more about what is going on in that sector. Ministers themselves accept that people in that sector are facing particular problems. I know that they accept that because they set up a review to study the sector, which recently published the report "Tomorrow's Children".
So that I am not accused of abusing statistics again, I shall quote what that report says about the change in the pattern of provision for playgroups and the period in which it has taken place. It says:
"The number of pre-schools/playgroups has fallen steadily in the 1990s: official figures show that the number peaked in 1991 when there were 18,000 sessional playgroups offering over 420,000 places. The number fell below 17,000 in 1995 and below 16,000 two years later. The most recent figures for 1998 show 15,700 playgroups offering 384,000 places."
That independent review also states:
"Our consultants concluded that the rate of closure is currently higher than in recent years although there were variations between regions."
That is worrying, because as the review acknowledges, not only are playgroups an important source of child care provision in this sector, but they bring wider benefits to families and communities. When playgroups and pre-schools close for reasons other than the quality of their provision, opportunities for community life, lifelong learning and family support may be lost. The parents of young children may no longer have the opportunities that the playgroups can provide to develop skills that may offer them their best chance of returning to work.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman should stop taking the milk of amnesia tablets. Does he agree that the figures that he has just quoted—I am glad that they are now on the record—are the most damning indictment of his Government's policy, particularly the introduction of nursery vouchers? Those vouchers drove more playgroups to the wall than any other policy. The setting up of a system under which ever more children went into reception classes at age four made it inevitable not only that playgroups would close but that the trend would be hard to dismantle, as the Government are discovering.
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman promised me that he would come to my assistance—well, it was pretty well-disguised assistance. Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, came to the Government's assistance instead. His assertion about nursery vouchers flies in the face of the conclusions of the independent report

119WH
to which I referred, which stated that the problems of pre-school playgroups began much earlier—in the earlier 1990s, long before nursery vouchers were ever thought of, let alone introduced—and that the problems continue now, long after their abolition. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the report, which goes into some detail about the factors responsible for the closure of pre-school playgroups.
Drawing upon the report once more, let me make another point that will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman because his constitutency covers some rural areas and is adjacent to others. Pre-school playgroups can play a particularly important role in rural communities. The report makes this point:
"In small rural communities which cannot support a school or nursery or where transport links are poor, a pre school or playgroup may be the only form of early years provision that is viable, and therefore can be an important contributor to the life of the community."
It follows that in these circumstances rural communities—once again—may be particularly hard hit if pre-school playgroups close.
Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point inasmuch as pre-school playgroups are vital to rural areas. Does he agree that demographic trends are part of the difficulty? These groups are closing because there are not sufficient children for them. That is why we must consider not only the quantity but the quality of provision. I hoped that we would get on to that, rather than stick on the statistics.
Mr. Clappison: I am coming to why the independent report thought that playgroups may be in difficulty. I know that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in rural areas, but I do not think that he paints the full picture. The report looked at the factors that may be causing the closure of pre-school playgroups, and noted:
"Many groups struggle under what is perceived to be an excessive administrative burden. This is reflected in the evidence collected by our consultants and was widely reported in response to our consultation."
Playgroups are saying that they face an excessive administrative burden. It is possible that recent policies and developments have increased the burden and the cost of regulation that playgroups face.
Much attention has been focused on the admissions policies of primary schools. The review states that they could have
"an enormous impact on local provision".
I note that, in their response to "Tomorrow's Children", the Government did not accept significant parts of the recommendations in their own report relating to admissions, which they said were a very important factor. Perhaps the Minister will say a little about that later. I know that the Government are trying to help, but whether they have done enough is another matter. The public sector would like to know how confident Ministers are that this decline in the number of preschool playgroups will be arrested. The Government talk about the extra places that have been created, but if at the same time other places are being lost, this must be taken into account in evaluating claims and promises about creating extra places. We have to look at the whole picture. I want Ministers to say what they think
120WH
the trend in pre-school playgroups will be, and whether they acknowledge both the special benefits of playgroups, in particular to rural areas, and—this is most important—the resulting loss of diversity in child care. Do they value the special benefits of these groups? Are they confident about the future of pre-school playgroups? We need to hear a little more than the Minister for School Standards said in her opening remarks.
We would appreciate hearing a little more about nursery classes in the maintained sector and about the ratio of learning assistants to teachers and the size of the nursery classes for which they are responsible. What has happened to them since the Government came to power? We hear much from Ministers about class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, but rather less about classes for eight, nine and 10-year-olds and secondary school pupils. Nor do we hear much from them about the size of nursery classes. The latest figures from January this year show that more than one fifth of nursery classes taught by one teacher had more than 30 pupils. There has been a significant increase since 1997, when 18.5 per cent. of nursery classes had more than 30 children. This year, there has been an increase to 20.7 per cent., with classes of more than 36 children. I realise that other people besides teachers are involved in caring for nursery classes, but the Government must tell us a little about this and about the size of those classes. How easy do Ministers think it will be for teachers in nursery classes to maintain the close interest in children that is required? How will the Government set that against their objectives of early learning goals.
We want high-quality provision and educational achievement, but a balance must be struck because we are dealing with children of such a tender age. We must not make premature decisions that might put them off formal learning later. Ministers must acknowledge that, as well as the fact that learning through playing is important. We need to know more about how they think a balance should be struck.
I want Ministers to acknowledge the part played by parents who do not go to work, preferring to stay at home to look after their children. We share the objective of expanding high-class, high-quality provision, but it is important for the Government to examine the genuine concerns in the sector and look at the whole picture, rather then gloss over those concerns. We want a more balanced and objective view from the Government, with attention being paid to the problems, rather than letting them fester and merely telling us more about their promises and claims. A more balanced approach would deal with many concerns undoubtedly felt by people in this sector.
3.8 p.m
Mr. Phil Willis: Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate you on your well-deserved elevation to your new post.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who is a kind, courteous and gentle member of the Government. [Laughter.] My apologies, that was a Freudian slip. My note said "the Minister".

121WH
No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree that many of us, especially those from the professonal or middle classes, have long taken early-years education for granted. When my first child was born in Cleveland over 20 years ago—a Labour authority which switched to the Conservatives, so I give both parties credit—there was a quality place for all five-year-olds for five mornings or five afternoons a week. That showed the authority's tremendous commitment. Our daughter went to an early-years class, which stood her in good stead. When we moved to Rufforth in North Yorkshire, where we now live, it was a small village and there was no equivalent provision. In fact, North Yokshire—starved of resources over many years—had a paucity of early—years provision. It was not expected that a small village school for only 34 children would have full nursery provision, but there was a playgroup. Parents clubbed together to provide a quality, professionally qualified, leader and our son had an excellent start there before he entered school.
At the time, I thought that that was the norm. I thought nothing more about it. It was not until I was working in east Leeds some years later that I began to recognise how vital early-years education was, particularly for youngsters in deprived urban settings—or, indeed, deprived settings anywhere. There was a lack of co-ordinated and quality provision in east Leeds. There was competition between the education day nurseries and the social service nurseries. Unqualified child minders offered much provision of dubious quality: there was some high-quality provision, but there was no control over standards. Overall, it smacked of everything epitomised by the previous Conservative Government. In other words, the system looked after a small handful of the wealthy, but the vast majority of young people had an unacceptably poor start in life.
The Rumbold report of 1990 dealt with the effectiveness of early-years education. It is a condemnation of the previous Government that they failed to build on that report and failed to recognise that the economic—as well as the social—well-being of the country depended on giving young people the best possible start.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and I recently visited America. We attended a dinner to hear about a book, "The Nation at Risk", which was written for President Reagan and dealt with the health of the nation. We were both struck by it. It stressed that the country's economic future depended on possessing a high-quality, well-educated work force. It was not so much that a high-quality, well-educated work force was wanted in itself as that those would be the people to buy products when they were older. It was a hard-nosed approach to the problem. One piece of American research has become famous. Its conclusion was that one dollar invested before a child was seven repaid itself at least seven times over later on—an important statement.
The Liberal Democrats welcome much of what the Government have done and we compliment them on it. But we would say that, wouldn't we? Our "Foundations for Excellence" document, produced some time ago, highlighted many similar issues. It stated:
122WH
"An education service designed to develop the potential of every child must begin with the early years… We are committed to developing a strategic framework… through Early Years Partnerships, initial and in-service education… We would encourage Early Years Development Partnerships… We would establish partnerships with parents from the beginning. We aim to ensure that high quality education is available… We would establish a Foundation Key Stage for children aged 3-5-plus at once… We would review initial teacher training for teachers intending to work in early years education".
When the Minister ably reviewed the Government's achievements, she was reading out a series of in effect Liberal Democrat objectives achieved by a Labour Government—constructive opposition at its very best.
We unreservedly recognise the commitment of the Minister and her colleagues and we should also recognise that they had an enormous mess to clear up. The Government took a bad idea—the nursery voucher scheme—and tried to make it better. Despite the protestations of the Tory Front-Bench spokesman, the reality is that throughout the country—even in Norfolk, where it was piloted—there was wholesale condemnation of that scheme. The hon. Member for Hertsmere cited rural areas, but I do not have a rural constitutency. Harrogate and Knaresborough is a purely urban constituency: would that I could represent more people, but I can deal with only one constituency at a time.
North Yorkshire provides a classic example of a large rural area, in which the nursery voucher scheme wrecked a whole range of provisions. It drove playgroups out of business and drove younger children into schools. The playgroups collapsed—that was the reality. I accept what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said about the value of playgroups. It takes me back to the playgroup in Rufforth—a place for parents to meet and for social groups to develop. People worked so well together. On millennium night, many of us intend to meet again after 20 years.
Instead of parents shopping around with their voucher, we now have an early-years development and child care partnership where parents can access provision without involving the shopping element. The key improvement is that partnerships have greater control over provision and can work within settings to improve quality.
In the Minister's opening remarks today, she failed to congratulate local education authorities—a slip, I am sure—for the enormous contribution that they made. It was not just the partnerships themselves, but the way in which LEAs worked hand-in-glove with them to ensure that they were successful.
Ms Morris: I accept that rebuke entirely and put that on the record. I apologise for missing local education authorities from the list. Of course they played a vital role in making the partnerships work. I am grateful to them.
Mr. Willis: I thought that I would give the Minister an opportunity to make that point before she retires to Cornwall.
The partnerships have also been important because they have included all the players in the field. These were not exclusive organisations, but an inclusive way of

123WH
getting people together. It was the first time ever, in my experience, that we had tried to bring different people together to form a partnership. In my county, it has been tremendous to see good ideas and practices cascade from one partnership to another.
The problem is that the money follows solely the child. We condemn the nursery voucher scheme, but an element of the same principle is being applied now—as the money still follows the child. That can cause difficulties in small settings. A group that is only just financially viable, with eight funded children bringing in £1,130 each, can only just manage. However, if one or two children leave, it suddenly becomes extremely difficult to cope. That is why so many pre-school playgroups are going out of business and why the Pre-School Learning Alliance is so concerned. It is not only a rural issue. The hon. Member for Hertsmere should be disabused of that. It is an urban issue too.
Mr. Clappison: I am sorry that I misdescribed the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, I was not overlooking urban areas—only highlighting the special importance of pre-school playgroups where they exist in rural areas.
Mr. Willis: Obviously, I am grateful for that.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that there are often pockets of deprivation in affluent urban areas. I will return to an issue affecting my own constituency later. In some playgroups, the opportunity to gain top-up fees in order to meet the requisite standards and bring in qualified staff simply does not exist. We are driving some good providers out of business, simply because present funding arrangements are not flexible enough for them to survive.
The evidence shows that more than 1,500 playgroups have closed and that a further 400 will close this year, which is devastating. During a recent education debate, the Government implied that, in essence, the question is one of parental choice. I hope that she did not mean that, because the matter is more serious than that. We must examine the underlying reasons, which is what the report to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred does.
Funding is certainly more generous than it was, but it will not allow for small provision, or for staff development and other support expenditure. I shall return to the issue of staff development, because I hope that the Minister has something positive to say about qualifications in early-years settings. It is true that, through the Pre-School Learning Alliance and partnerships, the Government have set aside some £750,000 to provide help for settings. That has been welcomed by organisations in my constituency, but the money is available for only a short time and in limited amounts. What will happen when it runs out? Will the Minister consider incorporating it in larger core funding for such groups? Without such funding, many provisions will close as soon as the money runs out. Does the Minister agree that it might be better to find a different funding method? If we want to encourage a quality setting, why cannot a particular setting be given a fixed resource for core funding, an amount for capital funding, and an additional amount for each young
124WH
person who enters? Funding must not become a lottery. If we want to encourage quality early-years provision within the partnerships, there must be an incentive to invest in and maintain that provision. That applies equally to small settings and large urban settings.
I hope that the Minister accepts that placing four-year-olds in reception classes is problematic. Increasingly, LEAs and voluntary-aided schools are moving to a system of one-point entry. That can have serious implications for summer-born children, who may be placed in a reception class when they are just four years old. As the hon. Member for Hertsmere has said, in some cases, such children are placed in settings where there is only one teacher for 30 plus children. That cannot be right. We cannot allow regulations to state that early-years placement classes must have a ratio of one teacher to 15 children, but reception classes can have a ratio of one teacher to 30 children. The Minister, who has already commented on this issue, will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that experimental work is being undertaken in 40 LEAs, where reception class staffing ratios are being reduced to one teacher to 15 pupils. However, that is happening in only the most deprived areas. If the Minister accepts that we must have consistent, quality early-years provision, does she also agree that it must be extended to four-year-olds, whether they are in an early-years placement or a reception class?
We have made no bones about our disquiet at the placement of four-year-olds in reception classes. It is unrealistic for schools, particularly small primary schools, to recruit specialists in early-years education. Younger children often miss out on the extremely important elements of play and personal and social development that are to be gained from learning with older children. Many nursery schools and classes, and many private and voluntary settings, are populated largely by three-year-olds. It is well documented that, in terms of the learning process, it is important for three-year-olds to have contact with four-year-olds, and I am sure that the Minister supports that.
Despite the Government's claims, financial pressure on LEAs resulting from the nursery voucher scheme carry-over has not eased significantly. There is an incentive for LEAs to place as many young children as possible into reception classes. I know that that is not Government policy. The Minister and her predecessor made it clear that reception classes should leave places open, but no head teacher that I have ever met would leave places open and thereby forgo that budget, simply to satisfy what are Government hopes, rather than legislation or regulation. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
The issue of independent schools worries Liberal Democrats, and we are confused by the Government's response to it. With regard to registration under the Children Act 1989, we see no reason why independent schools should be treated differently from private and voluntary settings, but they are. The Minister has said that this is a complex and delicate issue, but we cannot understand why, because it appears to be simple. The Care Standards Bill, which is currently before the House, could regulate everything under one system. The hon. Member for Hertsmere may think that I am attacking the private sector, but I am not. Nor am I accusing the private sector and private schools of

125WH
necessarily doing a bad job. I am simply saying that everyone should do the same job, and the same regulations and standards should apply. The Private Day Nurseries Association is rightly angered that the matter has not been addressed, and we hope to table an appropriate amendment or new clause to the Care Standards Bill, although it would be far better if the Government did the job themselves.
Why do private day care providers and early-years providers have to pay the extra charge of business rates when LEA providers do not? I have written to the Secretary of State on the matter, and the Minister will doubtless be informed in due course. In high-rated areas—again, my constituency is a good example—that can prove a significant on-cost. There should be a level playing field in respect of business rates.
Liberal Democrats accept the need for inspection. Quality must continually be driven up in all educational establishments, but particularly in early-years settings. Section 10 inspections will continue to be applied to under-fives, and the Minister for School Standards has said that regulation will bring everything together. Does she mean that there will be regulation only for under-fives who are in non-school settings? We would welcome that, but why cannot regulation be extended to under-fives in school settings? According to Ofsted, its inspections are comparable to section 122 and ex-section 5 inspections of pre-school education provision, which is currently regulated under the Children Act 1989. As the Minister knows, that is manifestly incorrect: those forms of inspection are completely different. I hope that she can offer some comfort to early-years providers by saying that there will be a single framework, irrespective of where the four-year-old in question is placed. Will the Minister also confirm that, when the new branch of Ofsted is established, the person heading the new section will be an early-years specialist? It would arouse some suspicion if the new senior officer heading the early-years inspections were not a specialist in that field.
After-school clubs have been a success for the Government, and they are a significant achievement. As a direct result of the national child care strategy and the new opportunities fund, after-school clubs now encompass 3,100 providers and 114,000 places. The Liberal Democrats recognise that that is a terrific achievement. However, there is a potential problem in that the money so far allocated from the new opportunities fund is for start-up. Many providers in my constituency have asked what will happen when the start-up funds are finished. The answer is that the new working families tax credit will click into place, and that parents in receipt of that credit will simply transfer those funds into the after-school club provision.
There is a logic to that, and if one examines the costings on which the proposals were based, the model being presented balances out in the final analysis. However, we are not convinced that that will be the case. We know that, unless there is good publicity, simply presented, about how the scheme is to operate, it will not happen. With every other type of benefit arrangement, the way in which it is publicised makes a great difference.
126WH
The Department for Education and Employment is saying that it is the job of the early-years development and child care partnership to advertise that facility. That is unrealistic, because the partnership was never intended to do that kind of administrative and advertising work. That is a job for Government, and I hope that the Minister will mount a major campaign to get the working families tax credit into sync with the proposals for after-school clubs. Otherwise there will be the risk of a decline, and of the dissipation of the good work already carried out.
The Minister mentioned sure start, a project that the Liberal Democrats welcome. During a visit to North Carolina, my colleagues were most impressed by a similar project there, although I did not see the provision myself. [Interruption.] That project was called smart start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) reminds me. I remember meeting my colleagues on the coach after their visit, and they were as excited as they would be if they had won the lottery. It was pretty impressive.
Every report that we receive about sure start is giving similar feedback. It is a very good initiative. I believe that it was initiated by the Treasury rather than the DFEE, but we will let that pass. The great advantage of the plan is that it is an integrated provision, and the Minister was right to say that it is a concrete example of joined-up government. It is the one project that Members of all political parties are calling a first-class initiative.
The trouble is that, in constituencies like mine, there is no access to the project. I have two deprived communities in my constituency—believe it or not, there is deprivation in Harrogate and Knaresborough. There are two major social housing estates in which there has been a real demand for sure start, yet on each occasion that we have asked the DFEE, we have been told that our social deprivation profile does not fit its criteria. We must encourage sure start in all areas in which there is a need for it and a willingness to participate in it. I hope that the Stockwell estate in Knaresborough—where excellent early—years provision is desperately striving to meet the social needs on the estate—and the Knaresborough road estate in Harrogate will be part of the initiative before long.
I could speak on this important issue for the whole three hours, but I shall conclude by saying that we are generally supportive of what the Government are trying to do. We have concerns in certain areas, but they are related to how to achieve the goal rather than to attacking the goal itself. However, the pledge to have 66 per cent. of three-year-olds in quality early-years places by the end of this Parliament is an unadventurous goal.
The Minister asked the hon. Member for Hertsmere what the Conservative party would do about this issue in its common-sense revolution, which is now under consultation, and he could not answer the question. The Liberal Democrats are committed, as we were at the last general election, to having quality early-years provision for all three and four-year-olds. It is nonsense to say that it is only good enough for some. If this is the Government's major education initiative—which we

127WH
support—and if the foundation of the education system depends on quality early-years education, it must be available for every single child.
We must not have the sort of social engineering that dictates that, in a county such as mine, where 2,000 extra places for three-year-olds are needed, there will be only 160 next year. That is unacceptable, and I hope that the Minister will fight tooth and nail with her Treasury colleagues to get those extra few pennies out of the Chancellor's war chest, so that she will be remembered as the Minister who provided quality early-years education for all three and four-year-olds.
3.37 pm
Caroline Flint: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) questioned why it was taking place in this Chamber. I am thankful that we have this Chamber, as it has provided more time to debate the important issue of child care. Perhaps we would not have such opportunities if we were operating only in the main Chamber. I welcome this opportunity, and all those who have come here to take part.
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of chairing a conference organised by the DFEE and the Daycare Trust that brought together people involved in establishing early-years development and child care partnerships up and down the country. It was fantastic, and I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister was there to address the conference and to answer questions. More than 500 people from all over the country were packed into the hall; in fact, people were turning up on the day even though they had not registered beforehand, and others were being turned away.
I do not wish to sound too corny, but the conference showed how the Labour Government are tackling the issue of child care. They recognise that while a national strategy is vital—a fact overlooked by the previous Government for many years—we rely on people in the community to establish the right mix of child care for the communities in which they live and work. That involves partnerships between local authorities, the voluntary and private sectors and, most of all, parents. It also involves listening to children to ascertain their needs, to ensure that the schemes are a success. The Government can be commended for a great deal in those areas.
It is a great pleasure to have a national child care strategy, and to have it discussed repeatedly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It would have been unheard of many years ago to hear the subject of child care debated by such eminent people. I have been involved for many years as chair of a national child care campaign, and it is nice that we have a Government who are listening.
I do not think that the Minister would deny that there are areas in which there is room to grow, or that we must examine how our provisions are working. We must build on the quality of provision, recruit the employees needed to service this expanding sector, and recognise the changing patterns of family life and the changing needs of parents. Undoubtedly, those changes affect different forms of child care. We must have a mature debate in advance of other provisions coming on-line that may affect the existing position.
128WH
For many years, Doncaster local authority, which is in my area, has had a good track record of providing nursery education in its schools—unlike several other areas that are under different political control. That has resulted in the provision of different services, which is partly the crux of the debate about pre-school playgroups. I am pleased that the council has sought partnerships with pre-school playgroups. I visited one such playgroup, which the local school had embraced in order to provide its nursery education by giving the group space within the school. That ensured that the quality of the provision was up to the standards that we would all expect for our children in their early years. That is an example of a successful partnership.
Another example is provided by Rossington high school, a secondary school in my constituency. It has assisted a pre-school playgroup in the village of Rossington by giving it space in a school building that was not being utilised. Consequently, parents were able to establish that group as part of our pre-school partnership in the Doncaster area.
Those are just two examples of local authorities and schools discussing matters, acting in partnership and bringing pre-school playgroups back into the fold. That contrasts with the separation that followed the previous Government's ridiculous introduction of the nursery vouchers scheme. From next year, education for three-year-olds will be rolled out to all local education authorities, and I know that that will be welcomed by parents throughout the land.
However, more work needs to be done to close the child care gap. More than two thirds of mothers now return to work after maternity leave, and the shortfall relates primarily to the under-fives. Last Friday, at the Rossington family centre, I met an adviser connected with the new deal for lone parents, who was conducting an outreach surgery to meet lone parents in the community. Although the centre will be providing me with some statistics, I think that it would also be useful for the Minister's Department to follow up the adviser's estimate that 50 per cent. of the lone parents who sought opportunities for work had children under the age of five. I was taken aback by the fact that people voluntarily sought work when they were in one of the most difficult periods for those raising children on their own. The Government should try to find out whether that is being reflected throughout the country by the Employment Service's outreach work and other positive policies for talking and listening to lone parents.
I should like to impress on the Minister the need to ensure that sure start strikes the right balance. There is a sure start pilot in my area. While it is important that the health service and other services in the community provide support for parents during the early years of their children's lives, it would be shortsighted—especially given the amount of money that is being provided for capital funds—to miss the opportunity to create the necessary infrastructure for child care, which is also important. Although that infrastructure may not be important for parents who want to go to work, parents who want to embark on education and training need an infrastructure that allows them to focus on that while their children are looked after in a quality environment. We should look to the future, when parents may want to go back to work or change jobs.

129WH
If we get the right infrastructure for child care now, it will develop and grow depending on the needs of parents—this year, next year and in 10 years' time.
When I and my colleagues on the Select Committee on Education and Employment went to America, we visited the smart start initiative in North Carolina. That initiative, which began in 1994, is led from the top by Governor Hunt—which demonstrates why it is so important that we have a Government who are prepared to lead from the top on child care issues. It was interesting that those involved in smart start appreciated that child care had to be an equal partner to the parental support that was being offered within communities.
Having helped to create two workplace nurseries, I have found that many people who are unused to working in child care, or whose children have not used any child care facilities such as a nursery, have somewhat blinkered imaginations in respect of the possibilities that exist. I should like to take a little time to describe a nursery in North Carolina that we had the good fortune to visit.
Having walked into the nursery building, which was quiet and pleasant, we went into a conference room to meet the manager of the nursery and some other people from smart start. Before our tour of the nursery establishment, I asked how many children attended it. It would not be an exaggeration to say that I nearly fell off my seat when I was told that they numbered 190. My colleagues could hardly believe it either.
The establishment was a combination of good design and advanced thinking about funding. The design featured a central core, where there were kitchens, office facilities, first aid facilities and meeting rooms for parents who might want to take part in parenting or literacy classes. Within that design had been created a series of small bungalows that housed no more than 10 children. That meant that while those children received a good quality of care and enjoyed a good staff to child ratio, the economies of scale allowed the nursery to thrive. Having helped, as I said, to establish two nurseries—one with 45 places and another with 30—I understand the economic difficulties of creating the diversity of funding that makes a success of nursery provision. That is one of the hardest things to get right.
The building was paid for by the YMCA, and smart start provided the quality assurance programme and the training of staff, as well as equipment, furnishings and outdoor play equipment. Governor Hunt's scheme subsidised families on low incomes—rather like our own working families tax credit and child care tax credit—and helped to bring money in. On top of that, the nursery, because of its size, had a partnership with the local university and other employers. We saw children from all ethnic backgrounds being brought together, all of whom were assured of quality provision. The diversity of funding assured sustainability into the future.
That subject arose during the conference organised by the Daycare Trust and the DFEE that took place a few weeks ago. It was suggested that we must ensure, through the partnerships, that there is an understanding about how to lever in money from the private sector and from those parents who can afford to pay part of the
130WH
contribution, if not all of it. That is why it is important to work with the partnerships to ensure the involvement of people who understand business planning.
During our visit to America, my colleagues on the Select Committee and I were excited to see the dynamic partnership with the business sector. It helps to provide a good outcome and to obtain money to sustain projects in child care and in raising educational attainment. We must get away from the grant dependency in sustaining projects for the future. With sure start, capital is available for buildings, but we must look to the future. Denaby in my constituency has sure start, and many people who live there work in Rotherham, Barnsley or Sheffield. Professional parents may pay full fees for nursery places, but they support vulnerable parents in the community who may need to be subsidised.
The Select Committee closely studied students and child care. In our first report on further education, we raised a number of problems with access to child care. One in four colleges have no child care facilities and more than one third have no places for children under three. Student parents cannot claim the child care credit that is available to other parents. Many parents missed out on early education and deserve a second chance. I commend the Government for acknowledging that. Under the previous regime of the Further Education Funding Council, subsidies for child care were not available to students until the age of 19. That was ludicrous, as I said many times in the Select Committee and the House, and I am pleased that that changed in September.
There is a young parents centre in Doncaster for young girls who have become pregnant while at school. It allows them to continue their schooling and provides child care and support to enable them to do so. The previous situation was ridiculous. When they reached the school-leaving age of 16, they could not continue their education, even if they wanted to, because further education colleges could not secure funds for them because they were too young. I am pleased to put on the record today the fact that that has changed since September and that funding is available to those young parents for child care—with no age bar. That is to be commended.
We must consider how to expand the opportunities for students and encourage colleges to enter into partnerships with nursery provision in the wider community. I was told of a university in London that has a nursery, but with only a few places available to students and the remainder being taken up by staff. I do not want to become involved in a staff versus student argument, but a balance must be struck. One of the reasons why students could not access the provision was that the nursery wanted to offer full-time places or traditional part-time places. It was not flexible enough to cope with students' courses and study hours. Flexibility is vital to enable students' needs to be met, including vacation times.
The learning and skills councils offer an opportunity to ensure that their priorities include the provision of child care. Councils must liaise with early-years development and child care partnerships in the communities for which they have responsibility. It is important to stipulate that someone with child care expertise is given a voice on the skills councils.

131WH
Only one in 10 workplaces provide help with child care for staff. The Government are doing what they can to encourage employers to provide such care and they have the full support of the public—92 per cent. of parents say that the Government should do more to encourage employers—but we must consider new ways of enabling employers to take part in child care provision. I acknowledge that it is difficult for a single employer to build a nursery on site or to take full responsibility for establishing such a service. It is a specialised area and most employers do not have the resources for that provision, so we must try to broker partnerships to enable them to do so.
We must also consider incentives for employers. Perhaps we should have a kitemark for good employers who support family-friendly policies or, in these days of league tables, perhaps we should have a league table of bad employers who do not support family-friendly policies. I would not be averse to that, but it is better to reward the positive than to emphasise the negative. We could consider the financial restrictions on employers who support their staff. For many years—too many years—I was involved with the campaign against the workplace nursery tax, which was eventually rescinded, because it did not acknowledge that child care is fundamental. 1 am pleased that there has been some movement in the Treasury towards supporting employers who help to subsidise public transport for their staff, and I hope that child care will be treated similarly. It is important to move away from benefits that stifle the opportunity to consider imaginative schemes for child care.
I have referred to business partnerships. I am aware that some businesses are interested in providing money on a business loan basis to those who want to establish child care provision and to provide back-up by helping child care providers to establish suitable business plans to make their enterprises sustainable. More work could be done on that.
We must remember that local authorities and hospitals are the largest employers in local communities. We should ensure that child care is part of their corporate staff policy. It is ironic that local authorities are playing such an important role in the early-years development and child care partnerships, but they may be found lacking in the provision of child care for their own staff. I am sure that the Minister is keeping a close eye on the ball to ensure that the money that is provided for child care in the community is passed on in full and that its resourcing and development is receiving full attention.
I shall comment briefly on the House of Commons. Hon. Members will be aware that in 1998 a child care survey was made of hon. Members, their staff and staff in the House. Since then, little has been said or done. Almost 300 of those who responded to the survey said that they would probably use a nursery if it were available. A large number said that they would support holiday play schemes. At a time when new buildings are being erected and accommodation is being reorganised in the Palace of Westminster, it is difficult to understand why there has not been time to discuss child care provision in the House. I have three children, but they are all at school, so I am not seeking a personal benefit. I realise that, with the hours that Members of Parliament work, it would be difficult to provide child
132WH
care for everyone, although it should be possible to make provision for some hon. Members and their families. More important, although the Palace of Westminster is a major employer, many staff do not have access to appropriate facilities. Not so long ago, I was privileged to visit nursery providers in the Westminster area. Several nurseries were run by the Church of England Children's Society, and I found, to my amazement, that in Whitehall the child care needs of staff are not typically disregarded. Many Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, subsidise or buy places for its staff in nurseries in the Westminster area. I have written to my hon. Friend the Minister about this matter.
As we move into the next millennium, perhaps we should reconsider the Administration Committee's decision that a nursery could not be provided without resort to subsidy and, therefore, to the taxpayer. If time can be found in the House—I believe that 30 minutes was spent discussing whether vellum should be used in the House of Commons—we should debate this matter. A nursery could be provided in the Palace or we could go into partnership with other child care providers in the vicinity and allow staff to adopt that option. I realise that that is not directly the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister. However, the Government's national child care strategy is designed to persuade employers and local authorities to provide child care and to support providers in the private and voluntary sectors. It is a shame that we cannot get it right in the Palace of Westminster.
4.1 pm
Mr. David Drew: It is a pleasure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my inaugural foray in this Chamber is taking place under your chairmanship. We struggled long and hard to get this experiment under way and, for good or bad, it is in place. I hope that many hon. Members will appreciate the benefits that this Chamber offers. I hope to play a small part in that regard this afternoon.
I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to the debate. She came to Gloucestershire earlier this year to talk to the early-years partnership. I must put on the record my thanks to her for that useful visit. I know that she has spoken to similar groups and that she has regular debates with people about what the Government are doing and how we could further enhance facilities.
I have no particular expertise in this area. I cannot match the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who sits on the Education and Employment Committee and whose previous experiences were relevant. I have some knowledge of the matter—I have talked with groups in my constituency.
I should declare an interest—my wife is the treasurer of the Stonehouse after-school group. She puts many hours into that work, which is unpaid, and I pay tribute to her for it.
Over the past two and half years, I have visited the various facilities that are available in my constituency and talked to many groups and constituents, who visited me in my surgery to discuss child care issues. I want to weave three questions into my speech, which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will answer. In case they become lost somewhere in the midst of other points that I raise, I shall finish my speech by repeating them.

133WH
I concur with many of the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. She said that, although we should examine and evaluate the situation, we should also stress how well the Government are doing in this context.
The Government issued a clear manifesto commitment on child care. It is initially being delivered for four-year-olds, but it will in due course be delivered for three-year-olds. Such provision affects whether people can work and secure an appropriate quality of life for their children. The richness that our different communities provide depends on adequate child care provision.
Although the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) threw a lot of statistics at us, I have some sympathy with his comments. I was not trying to be unhelpful when I said that we need to consider demographics as well as the way in which different groups function. His argument was important and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it.
The Government's approach involves quality and choice and it should provide places for people where they most need them. That does not involve a numbers game; it means guaranteeing individuals' children access to appropriate provision. We shall not be able to meet our ambitious target in two and a half years, but we have made an important start.
The structure of provision is confusing and sometimes daunting. I know from my county and constituency experience that although there are complementary approaches, there is also conflict between different providers. I do not want competition to outwit what I regard as the better approach, which involves people working together. However, we must face up to the fact that people choose between different organisations, which may mean that there will always be some conflict. Some organisations will go out of business, but others will replace them. We must give appropriate support to providers and ensure that the superstructure that surrounds these organisations is as effective as it can be.
I give credit to my county of Gloucestershire, which was not, but which was almost, unique—that may be a contradiction in terms—in that at the outset there was no formal provision of nursery education. It would be easy to play party politics and to say who was responsible for that. Since then, pre-school education has been provided slightly differently. The argument at the time was that, in the main, people in Gloucestershire did not want such provision or did not need it because there were other ways in which their children's needs could be catered for. That argument is, and has been proved to be, bunkum. Our experience is that many types of pre-school provision, including breakfast clubs and after-school clubs, and holiday provision, are popular. Long may they continue to be so. We must knock on the head the idea that good provision was already available and that many people made use of it—that was clearly not the case. Appropriate provision was not available and people could not always pay for what was available. We have begun to develop an effective strategy in the county and nationally.
I had some criticisms of the early-years development plan that my authority put together, but working with the public, private and voluntary sectors brought
134WH
together the best elements. Those sectors learned from each other, and we have tried to encourage that approach. The Government are not trying to prescribe what should happen in each area. Admittedly, we have to provide funding—without it, many positive developments would not have occurred. However, our approach does not involve choice for its own sake; we are trying to find a different way to do things and to bring people together in ways that were not previously possible.
Our approach does not simply involve education authorities. I am pleased by the way in which education authorities work with social services departments and local authorities work with health authorities. Those bodies can look across the cultures—there are often different cultures in this context—and begin to work together to mould policies so that they dovetail and do not have contradictory results. We should appreciate that different bodies may approach the problem from different directions.
My area has not yet had the benefit of sure start, although that money will, I hope, come through in due course. However, we do receive home start, albeit in a slightly different way—that is always the way with Gloucestershire. We tend to do our own thing, which is a strength and—dare I say it—a weakness.
We have begun to see how the link with parent education—especially the parent network organisation in Gloucestershire, with which I have had dealings—can help parents deal with the problems of their adolescent children. That is an important development, and is closely linked to the family centre, which is one of the good things to come out of Gloucestershire. In many respects, such centres were created for the wrong reasons—a lack of nursery provision—but have now been turned into a notable success. The creation of the centres was slipped through without being noticed by a particular party, but I should not emphasise that point too much. They offer pre-school provision for parents who have not been able to get their children into a playgroup or nursery, and they also provide support for parents, especially in the more deprived parts of my constituency. The Park family centre in Stonehouse, where I live, and the Parliament family centre in Stroud have done a lot of good work in supporting parents and, more important, their children. That is worth advertising, and I hope that it is in line with what the Government want.
I do not intend to criticise the Government, but I want to focus on some problems that have been brought to my attention. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Hertsmere said about provision, but it is inevitable that such a change would have such consequences. Recruiting good-quality people for playgroups and after-school clubs is a problem. Rural areas might be different, but there is not an abundant supply of people with the right qualifications and aptitude. The right people may come forward in due course, but there is a genuine need for training. Some visitors to my surgery have been unclear about what qualifications they would need to get those good-quality jobs, so clarification is necessary. Perhaps that message could be relayed through the early-years partnership.
Pressure on volunteers is also a problem, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere pointed out in relation to rural areas. If people have to sacrifice a lot of time, that is

135WH
undesirable. Everyone wants to drive up standards, including the groups themselves. They are not saying, "We want to stay as we are." Instead, they welcome increasing professionalisation, and want help to achieve what we are asking of them. That relates to the question of how to get volunteers and what to expect of them. Volunteers are being asked to do a professional job—we should not kid ourselves about that—and they are prepared to do it, but they need support.
Another important issue is children with special needs. Dursley Church of England primary school has a centre, at the Highfields site, which has done excellent work for children who otherwise would not have such opportunities. The Shrubberies special school, in Stonehouse, also takes children with profound difficulties, and provides them with a more gentle and supportive introduction to education. As always, there are more children with such needs than available places. How will special needs be catered for? That is an especially pertinent point in Gloucestershire, as a special needs review is currently under way. Considerable opposition has been expressed, largely to the proposed closure of moderate learning difficulty schools. All that washes back into pre-school provision, and further strategic thinking is probably necessary. Resources will have to be applied—nationally, locally or a balance of the two.
The Government have made an enormous financial commitment—£470 million. No group has come to me to say, "Please, you're doing the wrong thing." There may be nuances and differences of opinion on certain issues, but the groups welcome the investment of time and money in the sector, and will do what they can to make provision available. The link with schools was touched on my the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who spoke about the stage at which children should enter schools. In a mostly rural area such as mine, that is a planning issue. A private nursery in my constituency, Upper Knapp Farm day nursery, made the point that although it benefits, through the child care tax credit, from the money that it puts into the system, it needs to know how to plan for the future. Schools might open pre-school units in competition with such nurseries, and there will also be other developments. Clarity is, therefore, necessary.
The breadth of support and quality of after-school provision are impressive. I have direct experience of that in Stonehouse, and I have also been to Gastrells in Stroud. Children are now recieving genuine support where previously they received none. Many of those children are receiving that support because their parents are able to go out to work, which is a win-win situation. Some of those children might have gone to child minders previously, but most of them probably did not. Provision is therefore being opened up. Finance, development and resources are important.
There are three main questions for my hon. Friend the Minister. First, what training and support are necessary to recruit good people, and what should the qualification route be? I am confused about that, as are people who have visited my surgery. Secondly, what will be done about the funding gap up to Christmas, which is a result of the way in which the money is paid? That is an issue for the nursery that I visited, and also for the playgroups, which are saying, "We are fine from Christmas onwards, but how do we get to Christmas,
136WH
because the money isn't there?" I have read the answers to parlimentary questions, and perhaps I have got the wrong message, but strong opinions have been expressed on this matter.
The third point relates to funding, and touches on something that I have already emphasised. Child care tax credits are very welcome. I know that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for them and I do not want to put her on the spot, but why do people receive child care tax credits when they send their children to a child minder but not when they use a nanny, who may work from someone else's home? I do not want to finish on a negative note, but that is causing one of my constituents a great deal of angst. She keeps asking for an answer and I try to explain why the problem has not been addressed. Such minor considerations can make a difference between someone sending their child to an appropriate place and getting to work, and not. My constituent works and child care tax credits would help her in many ways. I realise that the Minister may not be able to respond now, but a commitment to write to me would be appreciated.
As an overview, apart from my minor quibbles, the policy achievement has been tremendous. We are delivering, and a lot of good developments have taken place.
4.21 pm
Valerie Davey: I came this afternoon to celebrate the Government's achievements in extending quantity and quality of nursery and child care provision, but I realised that there would be time for me to make a contribution.
I want to highlight the importance of training and qualifications, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. In Bristol, although not in my constituency, I can celebrate our early-years and child care partnership which has brought together the private sector, the voluntary sector and the local authorities to make even better provision than they were making separately. I can also celebrate an important development—again not in my constituency—with sure start.
Those excellent projects build on provision that the city of Bristol and formerly the county of Avon made many years ago to ensure that all four-year-olds had the opportunity of nursery education. That is in sharp contrast with Gloucestershire, which is the neighbouring county of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). They built on a tradition that went back to the provision of training. After the war, it was recognised that child care was important and that women, who were the main providers of child care, needed qualifications. The city and county of Bristol, as it then was, established a nursery nurses college. In 1946, women entered the college and gained what became the Nursery Nurses Education Board qualifications. The college, of which I had the privilege of being not just a governor but chair of the governing body, continued as a local education authority college until the incorporation of further education colleges. I saw the basic qualification for 16 to 19-year-olds develop, in conjunction with further and higher education in the city, to become diploma qualifications that led on to graduate and post-graduate qualifications. Those

137WH
developments in qualifications have been of prime importance. I trust that they can be developed throughout the country.
I know high-quality provision is important. My hon. Friend the Minister emphasised the fact that people from a range of backgrounds enter child care. In her climbing frame example, there is not just one step ladder but several step ladders for different backgrounds and skills, such as nursing and teaching, which contribute to a nursery qualification. That can lead to a teaching qualification and beyond.
I want to celebrate those achievements because the Government are determined that provision is not localised and dependent on where people live. They want provision to be available generally and the qualifications recognised nationally. People should have a clearer understanding of what elements of professional training contribute to the qualifications. This is not just about child care. As a governor of the college, I recognised many years ago that the young people who were providing child care were also confronted with the needs of the parents. The children that they cared for often came from disturbed homes and needed carers who understood them and the family setting, because the parents also needed support. It was soon recognised that those who entered the profession at a more mature age were often better qualified. They brought with them experiences that were relevant to their professional work and training and were able to become highly skilled providers of care for children and their families.
I remind hon. Members of a trip that the Select Committee on Education and Employment made to Switzerland. We saw excellent nursery provision that was highly structured but most creative in every sense of the word. It catered for young people of a slightly older age group than we associate with nursery education, which raised the issue of the age at which young people should transfer from nursery provision to the more formal early reception year before infant education.
There is a provision, which is based in Bristol, that is a national resource. It is known as "Children of the 90s", which has the difficult acronym ALSPAC—the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. The aim of the group is to identify ways in which to improve the health and development of future generations. It started in 1990 and, in association with the university, studied the development of all children born in Avon—which
has a population of about 1 million—during 1991 and 1992. More than 14,000 children were included in the study. It included a hands-on examination of the children, questionnaires that were completed by parents, education, social and health records, biological samples and specific measurements of the home environment to determine the causes of childhood ailments and disorders. It also looked positively at the way in which children develop.
All training must include an excellent child development study. At an all-party group on the adoption of children, I recently met social workers who were examining the complex way in which children develop within adoptive homes to determine their needs. They thought that it was important for social work training to emphasise child development. I recommend the studies that were produced by "Children of the 90s".
138WH
It has provided a huge bank of knowledge and should be seen as a national resource. In 1998 those children reached seven and an extenive study is under way. There is a resource which can be the basis of a great deal of potential study in colleges and universities and which will, I am sure, supplement the training that is being given at all levels.
In Bristol we celebrate the fact that our association has existed over many years, emphasising the importance of child care and development. We have particularly emphasised training and professional qualifications and the bringing together of social services, education and health resources to ensure a greater understanding of children's development and needs.
In Bristol, as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, we have home start, which has shown how, in the voluntary sector, people with their own experience in the family can contribute. It invited to its last AGM the director of "Children of the 90s", recognising that those volunteers, too, need professional help and development. That is all, of course, for the children. I believe that, although such work is intended to improve the health and development of children of the next generation, the Government have made an excellent start in their first two and a half years towards ensuring excellent nursery provision for chldren now, which will stand them in good stead in the future. I trust that for the rest of the Government's term—and the following five years—there will be the necessary longterm development to ensure that the importance of child care and professional training for those involved in it is recognised in our communities and as part of our national heritage.
4.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I am delighted to participate in my first debate in this Chamber, especially with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I join other hon. Members in congratulating you on becoming a Deputy Speaker.
This has been a vigorous and thoughtful debate and, I hope—to revert to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—the beginning of a mature debate on some of the issues that we confront as we develop early-years education and child care services.
One reason for my delight at participating in this debate is that this is my first opportunity in a debate to think about and respond to some of the issues that hon. Members raise. Normally, when we debate in the other Chamber, we are up against time constraints, and I always feel that Front Benchers do not give enough time to the issues raised by hon. Members during debates. I shall start by doing that, and then return to an overview, building on what my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards said.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was, I think, playing with statistics, because our purpose is not to become obsessed with the settings in which children are placed. In whatever setting, we want them to have a good experience, with sufficient opportunities to provide choice for parents and children. The quality of the experience and the nature of the choice are what

139WH
matters—not so much the setting. That was why I wanted to draw attention to the overall increase that has taken place in child care and early-education places. That is an indisputable fact, although the places are emerging in varied settings as we create greater diversity in the system.
Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. As I made clear, I was talking about places rather than settings. Her party has made pledges that have concentrated on numbers. Perhaps the Minister would write to me setting out how provision for children under eight has, as she claims, increased. I should be happy to receive such a letter, because her Department's statistics—taking the whole picture and all the settings involved—show a reduction in the number of places.
Ms Hodge: I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman, but would simply comment that he has selected part of the relevant figures. Children under eight also take advantage of out-of-school clubs and holiday schemes. The figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred do not reflect the massive increase in early-years education, in maintained schools and other sectors.
Certain evidence from the figures causes me concern, as it will the hon. Gentleman, and he may want to respond. There was a drop in one year in the number of child minders, which is worrying in the light of our wish for diversity and for the type of response to the growing gap in child care, particularly for the under-fives, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley alluded. We need to deal with that and are doing so. There are many reasons for that decline in the last year. They include the fact that we are cleaning up the figures. For the first time, we have had proper audits, which revealed that social services lists included child minders who had not been working for many years. In a tight labour market, people tend to move out of jobs that have traditionally been seen as low-income, low-status jobs, and child minding is viewed in that way. We need to do something about that and to raise the status and income that people can enjoy from it.
A welcome discovery has been made by the Exit survey carried out by the National Childminding Association. Many women who enter child minding—98 per cent. of people working in early-years education and child care are women—are going up the climbing frame of qualifications into other professions, such as social work, health work or teaching. We should welcome that, not merely because of the greater contribution to society that those people subsequently make, but because of the personal development of those women. Nevertheless, we need to tackle the need for sufficient places to meet the child care gap for working parents.
Mr. Clappison: I was concerned about playgroups. When the Minister writes to me, will she set out her reply in the form in which her Department publishes the statistics—the provision for children under eight? Is she saying that there has been an increase in that provision, setting aside the provision for out-of-school clubs and holiday schemes, which I distinguished from other provision and which is mentioned in the documents? That provision has decreased.
Ms Hodge: With the greatest respect, I must say that that comment shows that the hon. Gentleman does not
140WH
live in the real world, where children across the spectrum are spending part of their time in school, using the growing services that are now available for three and four-year-olds in school; they may then have wraparound care, of which out-of-school clubs are inevitably part. The document, which I happen to have with me, refers to provision for children aged five to seven. We are getting into a ridiculous argument about definitions rather than about substance—about whether there is more or less provision for children. We recognise that there is not enough, which is why we have embarked on a national child care strategy and the expansion of early-years education. However, we are getting there, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere, and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) mentioned another matter; the latter happens to have absented himself, so I shall not respond to his entire lengthy contribution. While he got cold, we remained cold in this Chamber.
Mr. Clappison rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Is it about the cold?
Mr. Clappison: No, it is not about the cold. I do not want to come to the assistance of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and I do not agree with all that he said, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's response to it.
Ms Hodge: Perhaps I should write to him as well.
Because of our concern to retain and maintain a vibrant and growing pre-school sector, we established the pre-school review. It was not our review; we put in place an independent review chaired by an independent chairman so that its conclusions would not be Government conclusions but could be considered by us. We are already doing so. We have published an early response to the many recommendations in that review. Together with partners such as the pre-school sector and the early-years development and child care partnerships, we are developing a plan for the early-years and child care sector to ensure that as that sector grows, the pre-schools play a strong role because we want diversity.
I want to set one record straight. Under this Government, pre-schools have unprecedented access to public funds. That did not exist prior to our taking office. They have the money that follows the child, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, with the expansion of free places for three and four-year-olds. Of the first tranche of money for the expansion for three-year-olds, 80 per cent. has gone into the private and voluntary sectors. Most of that money is going to help to sustain a vibrant pre-school sector. That is crucial to the child care tax credit—a mechanism that will bring more resources into the sector.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, asked how we would publicise the child care tax credit. I stress that we are not leaving it to partnerships, although they have a key role because they are in direct contact with providers, who in turn are in direct contact with those

141WH
parents who need to make claims. We are supporting those partnerships. We have given them a disk of information that will help to explain what is available locally. The Daycare Trust will be grant-aided to go round the country with an information campaign on child care tax credit and I am in discussions with the Treasury to ensure that its advertising also reaches parents.
In the first 63 days since the introduction of the working families tax credit, there were more than 700,000 inquiries. We have now had 430,000 new and renewal applications. We are not doing a bad job to ensure that a new tax credit, which brings money into the system, especially the pre-school system, reaches the appropriate people.
For two years running, we have made a £500,000 grant, which is administered by the pre-schools themselves, to ensure that those in financial difficulty have access to short-term funds to sustain themselves. We give a large amount of money to the Pre-School Learning Alliance central budget to support pre-schools in the field—more than £1.5 million towards training. A lot of money is going into the sector.
Other issues, such as the admissions policy, need to be addressed. I say to those hon. Members who believe in local democracy that we will not and should not dictate from the centre about what local people and local education authorities should do about their admissions policy. The guidance encourages deferred entry. We are pleased that more local education authorities are taking up deferred entry, but it would be wrong for us to dictate that those authorities should ignore local parental choice and take a particular route on the matter of entry.
The hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised the issue of class sizes. There is a distinction, which I am not sure that the hon. Member for Hertsmere entirely understands, between nursery and reception class sizes. Nursery class sizes have not gone up. Between January 1998 and January 1999, the average size of single-teacher nursery classes decreased. An additional adult tends to work alongside the nursery teacher in such classes. In the guidance drawn up under the Children Act 1989, we recommend that there should be two adults in every nursery class. We inherited the mess caused by nursery vouchers, to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred. Competition for the vouchers led to far too many children going to inappropriate reception classes.
Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady may not have heard me correctly. I referred to nursery class sizes. Once again, I am quoting from the Government's own published information, which shows that between 1997 and 1999 average class sizes went up, and so did the percentage of classes with 31 or more pupils. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made that point, too.
Ms Hodge: There is a distinction between nursery classes, to which I think that the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred, and reception classes, to which I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough was referring. We were not quite in government in January 1997–1 know that it seems a
142WH
long time since we took office as we come up to Christmas and we are all getting tired. The 1997 statistics were around when the Conservative party was in power. I was referring to statistics for January 1998–99, which are more relevant, as they have been compiled since we came to power.
Mr. Willis: May I offer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister an apology? I had a pager message that my flat was flooded. My daughter said, "We can't turn the water off." I was responding to a damsel in distress. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have rushed from your place if you had had a similar message.
The Minister acknowledged my point and I hope that she will expand on her answer. A significant number of very young four-year-olds are now in reception classes. The Minister acknowledged that by giving 40 local education authorities additional funding to reduce those class sizes to no more than 15. Does the hon. Lady therefore agree that, having made that concession, the provision should be applied to all reception classes so that all four-year-olds, especially young four-year-olds, receive proper early-years provision rather than extended reception provision?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for explaining why he was late returning to hear the ministerial reply. That is an example of courtesy which not only the Minister but hon. Members very much appreciate.
Ms Hodge: Thank you, for making remarks with which I should like to associate myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, particularly given my previous comments before the hon. Gentleman explained his absence. I draw to his attention the fact that we have so far helped 60 LEAs, not 40. I entirely agree that what matters now is to get absolutely right the offer that fouryear—olds enjoy. Part of it relates to the adult-child ratio in those settings. We have made a start and I cannot prejudge the Chancellor's future decisions about extending the provision across the country, but it is of great importance if we are to provide the quality education that we want.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned independent schools. I draw his attention to a clause in the Care Standards Bill that will give powers to the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to regulate and inspect the provision for children under five in independent schools. We are consulting the independent sector about that. I draw hon. Members attention to a serious problem with a number of independent schools in which perhaps half a dozen children are of statutory school age, but many more are below it. The fact that they have a few children of statutory school age exempts them from the regulation and inspection regime. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about that. We are consulting on it with the independent sector.
Business rates for private providers is a difficult issue. Rates are set according to market value. The market value of a school is far less than the market value of what might often have been domestic properties before they became private nurseries—that leads to a difference in rateable values. The issue has already been drawn to my attention and I am considering whether there is anything that we can do about it.

143WH
I commend the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has done on child care issues. I hope that together we can sort out something for the Palace of Westminster—we ought to lead by example here at the heart of the nation if we are serious about evolving a national child care strategy. I agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the conference that we recently attended. Eighteen months into the national child care strategy, it was heartening to see more than 500 people, from the north of Scotland down to Cornwall—in respect of which my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is currently carrying out her ministerial duties—talking about child care. Some 200 people could not get in because the hall was full.
I have also visited many partnerships, including those in Gloucester and Bristol. My visits are often on a Saturday and it is encouraging to see as many as 150 people from various local places, with different experiences, backgrounds and interests, thinking about the local provision of early-years education and child care. We are encouraging the growth of something innovative and important.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on the issue of students and child care. I trust that she, too, welcomes the money that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made available in his pre-Budget review. I hope that we will be able to use that to support individual students, rather than more provision in further education colleges. By supporting individual students, we will deal with the problem of those colleges that choose not to invest in a child care facility on site.
I am pleased that, as part of the national child care strategy, we have been able to put in £5 million annually through the Further Education Funding Council to encourage FE colleges to develop their facilities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on the importance of learning and skills councils. We must ensure that they put a strong emphasis on training for early-years education and child care workers.
I also agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of local authorities using the money that we give them in their standard spending assessment for early-years provision. It was depressing to find out last year that only 20 per cent. of that money had been passported through to the early-years development and child care partnerships, reflecting the priority that many local authorities give to this important work?it is important in the community, but it is not always quite as important in council chambers. We will do all that we can to urge that more happens in that regard.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) asked more than three questions. Perhaps I can combine one of my answers with a response to the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). If we are to succeed, it is crucial to attract, retain and train good child care workers and thus raise quality in that sector.
It is astonishing that more people work in early-years education and child care than there are teachers. If we are to meet the demands of our current targets, we need to recruit a further 100,000 people into the sector. The work is traditionally low paid and the work force comprises 98 per cent. women and is 97 per cent. white. Although there are many talented, committed, well-qualified and competent workers, there are also too
144WH
many who do not have appropriate training and qualifications. That is why we are investing a huge amount in a qualification and training framework. We have done a lot already. We have set up a new national training organisation and we are establishing a new qualifications framework.
We inherited a legacy of between 1,300 and 1,400 different qualifications—employers did not know what competencies they were buying and students did not know what competencies they would obtain from the training that they were doing. We are establishing a new national framework of nationally recognised qualifications. We are prioritising training and investing money in it via the further education sector, training and enterprise councils and the standards fund. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West said, it is important that there is an emphasis on child development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud talked about children with special educational needs. Again, some authorities and establishments are doing really good work with those children, but there is more to do. The Department recognises that if we can identify children's needs and give the appropriate support early on, the outcome for those children will be enormously enhanced. That is why this year, for the first time, we have ring-fenced some of the money given to the early-years development and child care partnerships for investment in special educational needs. I hope that that is the start of a much longer-term strategy to tackle that issue.
My hon. Friend also mentioned child care tax credits for nannies. Where the state puts money into child care, it is important that there is a quality threshold, which is why tax credits are available only when that child care is regulated and registered. Nannies are neither regulated nor registered and, as I have explained elsewhere, to provide regulation for nannies would be an almost impossible task and would give false comfort to parents who were selecting them for their children. That is why nannies are not included in the scheme. I note, however, that the child care tax credit has been generous.
I hope that I have answered the questions that were asked. I shall conclude by saying something about the overall strategy. When we came into government, the needs of young children and their families in the changing world of work were simply not emphasised. One difference between this Government and the previous Government was the latter's belief that the interests of children and families were a matter of private concern for individuals. The state intervened only at points of crisis—when a child was at risk of abuse, for example. There was a lot of rhetoric abusing lone parents and much moralising about the nature of the family, but there was not a lot of support for families and children. I hope that we are beginning to put into place an infrastructure that will give young children the best start and will support families in the changing world of work, especially given that more mothers are working.
When we came into government, the United Kingdom lay at the bottom of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's international league tables for investment in early-years education. However, OECD colleagues made a recent visit to undertake a study of this issue and there is no

145WH
doubt that we are now leading OECD countries in both innovation and investment. Some £8 billion is being invested in this comprehensive spending review period—I call it our quiet revolution. We are expanding places, developing a quality framework, reviewing regulation and inspection, investing in training and introducing a new foundation stage with early-learning goals. All those are key initiatives.
The other initiatives to which hon. Members referred, such as, sure start and early excellence centres, are prime examples of how the Government are trying to break down traditional professional barriers. We are trying to work not merely across Government, but across sectors and professions to put children at the centre of everything that we do and to meet their needs. We want professionals to respond to children's and families' needs, rather than to their own needs.
This is the most exciting time to be working in early-years and child care. We have already achieved a huge amount. All four-year-olds have a place and the number of three-year-olds in places has doubled. We will set a
146WH
target during this Parliament for universal nursery education for three-year-olds. We will deliver child care places for 1 million children by the end of this Parliament. We will have 250,000 sure start centres up and running. We will exceed our target on early excellence and we will have a new framework of qualifications and regulations.
There is a huge amount left to do and I want to end with a big thank you, not to people in the House, but to the many hundreds of people in local communities who have engaged with us so positively, despite the huge pressure that we have put on them to start delivering the best start for our young children. We can decide national policies here, but they must be delivered locally in communities. We depend on local people. We share with them the agenda of creating a more equal society to ensure that all children enjoy the opportunity to develop their potential from their earliest years. That is a vital policy and we are beginning to deliver on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Five o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Astra Commission Payments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make available(a) to the Trade and Industry Committee and (b) to the Plaintiff before the JDS Tribunal in the case of Gerald James file bundles 120 and 121 in respect of Astra Commission payments. [101460]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]: Any request for information received from the Trade and Industry Committee would be carefully considered. I understand that the proceedings before the JDS Tribunal in the case of Gerald James were concluded on 8 December 1999.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [102362]

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

  Plutonium Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what consultations he has had with British Nuclear Fuels plc concerning the quality control procedures covering MOX plutonium fuel manufactured at Sellafield for export to Japan; and what representations his Department has received from(a) Japanese customer companies and (b) the Japanese Government in respect of the monitoring of MOX fuel; [102176]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the reports provided to his Department in the past year by BNFL concerning safety and quality assurance of MOX plutonium fuel. [102180]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ministers were concerned to learn of falsified quality control data at BNFL's Sellafield MOX Demonstration Facility. The Government have insisted that the company co-operate fully with investigations both by the Japanese customer and regulator and by the HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  No representations have been received by my Department from BNFL's Japanese customers. Inquiries from the Japanese Embassy about the data falsification were referred by my Department to HSE (Nil) with a request to respond direct. With HSE's agreement, I am placing a copy of their reply to the Embassy in the Library of the House.
  236W
  On 1 December I discussed with the BNFL Chairman, Mr. Hugh Collum, the progress of the investigations being undertaken and the company's strategy for dealing with management issues identified. Remedial measures are in hand to satisfy both HSE (NII) and BNFL's Japanese customers. I have asked the company to make these public as soon as it has satisfied HSE (NII) as to the adequacy of its proposals.

  Copyright
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effects of the proposed EU Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society on(a) library and archive services, (b) UK library and archive privileges and their extension to digital copying, (c) lawful copying and use of libraries and archives and (d) music reproduction; and if he will make a statement on the inclusion in the proposed EU Directive of the exhaustive list of exceptions to the restricted acts. [102542]

  Dr. Howells
  While we do not think that the effects of the draft Directive would be particularly problematic in the case of archival operations, we are concerned about its potential impact on library services and privileges. Our concerns stem chiefly from the exhaustive list of exceptions, which we have always felt is unnecessarily prescriptive and inflexible, and have been increased by European Parliament amendments, largely accepted by the Commission, which seek to restrict further the exception provisions. In particular, these amendments make photocopying and research exceptions in the Directive subject to "fair compensation" for right owners, exclude printed music from the photocopying exception, and limit the only specific library exception to copying for conservation purposes.

  Overall, our aim is to ensure that it remains possible to achieve a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of right owners and those of users, such as in the library and archive sectors, and we are therefore pressing strongly for much greater flexibility in the exception provisions. Negotiations on the Directive are still some way from conclusion, and we hope that it will prove possible to obtain improvements, particularly since several other member states share many of our concerns about the approach on exceptions. Moreover, we are aware of the potential conflict between exceptions and the use of technical protection measures by right owners, and, like other member states, are seeking to achieve an appropriate balance in this area also.

  Competition Commission
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the projected costs of the Competition Commission for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [102751]

  Dr. Howells
  Forecast net expenditure for the Competition Commission for these financial years is as follows:

  (a) 1999–2000: £8.3 million

  (b) 2000–2001: £9.0 million.

  Postal Services Commission
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the projected costs of the Postal Services Commission for the year 2000–01. [102754]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We anticipate that the costs of the Postal Services Commission (PSC) for the year 2000–01 will be in the region of between £2 million and £4 million.

  Aircraft Projects
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make a decision regarding suppliers of the A3XX and A400m projects; and if he will make a statement. [102523]

  Mr. Alan Johnson:
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: Airbus has been a major success story of European co-operation, and it is important that the UK continues to be involved in it. British companies benefit from the success of Airbus programmes, not only by supplying to BAE SYSTEMS, the UK partner in Airbus, but also to the French, German and Spanish partners. Procurement choices are the commercial decisions of those companies. Over 400 UK sub-contractors and suppliers are currently working on Airbus programmes.

  BAE SYSTEMS has applied for launch investment. In assessing this application, we have looked at the potential benefits for the UK economy as a whole to be secured by this programme. It represents the sort of high-tech knowledge based manufacturing which the Government are keen to encourage. This high level of innovation and technology has benefits which cascade throughout the supply chain.

  The Future Transport Aircraft competition is being organised by the Ministry of Defence. However, I am well aware of the industrial significance of this project to BAE SYSTEMS and the UK supply chain. My Department has liaised closely with MOD on this, and the decision (expected in the New Year) will properly take account of industrial factors.

  Telephone Pornography
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to monitor and control the use of telephone pornography services offered by telecommunications providers. [102838]

  Ms Hewitt
  Telephone pornography services are offered using the Premium Rate Service (PRS) charging mechanism. The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) has responsibility for regulating PRS, through its Code of Practice. ICSTIS can apply sanctions, ranging from fines to disconnection and barring from service provision, to service providers which breach the Code. ICSTIS and the Office of Telecommunications (Oftel) are currently reviewing the regulatory framework for PRS to ensure that consumers continue to benefit from the right level of protection.

  The ICSTIS Code requires all providers of services to abide by a number of provisions covering decency, and requires that promotional material does not reach those for whom the service concerned may be inappropriate.

  Gas-fired Power Station, Avonmouth
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Scottish and Southern Energy's proposal to build a new gas-fired power station at Britannia Zinc Ltd., Avonmouth. [103464]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have decided not to grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Scottish and Southern Energy plc for a 100 MW combined cycle gas turbine generating station at Britannia Zinc Ltd., Avonmouth. The application will be put on hold unless an interested party satisfies the Secretary of State that it should be determined at this stage.

  This decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled, "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071). I would be prepared to review the decision, if requested, when the stricter consents policy announced in the White Paper is relaxed.

  This is the 15th application, totalling over 5,800 MW of new gas-fired generating capacity, which has not been approved since the White Paper was published in October 1998. That would be enough electricity to supply approximately all the households in Greater London or the whole of Scotland.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Cashmere Exports
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the instruction he gave earlier this year to the Export Credits Guarantee Department to establish a bond guarantee scheme for cashmere exports to the US. [103465]

  Mr. Byers
  In March of this year, the dispute between the EU and the US over the EU's banana regime led to the US requiring the posting of bonds in respect of potential additional customs duties for certain categories of EU goods, including cashmere knitwear, pending the decision of the WTO arbitrator. Given the potentially devastating effect this could have had on the UK cashmere industry, the Government decided to establish a limited scheme, to be administrated by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, to indemnify cashmere exporters against losses arising from these bonds and additional customs duties.

  ECGD's Accounting Officer advised me that, in his judgment, the risk involved in giving such guarantees under Section I(1) of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, could not be accepted under ECGD's normal underwriting criteria.

  However, in view of the importance which Ministers attached to ensuring the future of the UK cashmere industry, I instructed him to make such guarantees available.

  Cashmere was subsequently removed from the list of affected goods and I can now report that the scheme has been closed down and that ECGD has not been and will not be required to pay any claims.

  Export Controls
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government are in a position to respond to the recommendation by the Trade and Industry Committee in its Second report of Session 1998–99 on Strategic Export Controls (HC 65) that, prior to the passage of new legislation, consideration be given to laying any new orders made under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 before the House. [103547]

  Mr. Byers
  We have considered the Committee's recommendation on this matter and concluded that, pending the introduction of new primary legislation which will provide for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation on strategic export controls, as proposed in the Strategic Export Controls White Paper, any further Orders made under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 will be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

  Combined Heat and Power Station, Hythe
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on the proposal by Scottish Power Plc to build a combined heat and power station at Hythe, Hampshire. [103561]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today given clearance under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 to EniChem UK Ltd. and Scottish Power plc's notification to build a 45 MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the EniChem works, Hythe. The decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  Copies of the Press Notice and the clearance letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to amend the law on equal pay. [102724]

  Ms Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are tackling the gender pay gap through a range of action, including encouraging less gender stereotyping in subject choices and career choices at work. We will ensure the right legislative framework is in place which complies with our European obligations, and we will consult on changes to Tribunal procedures to speed up and simplify equal pay claims.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of workers being paid less than the national minimum wage. [102723]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  240W
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Crausby, dated 16 december 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question about the number of workers being paid under the national minimum wage.
  Definitive estimates on the number of people that are being paid under the national minimum wage are not yet available. Currently available estimates for assessing the number take data from both the New Earnings Survey and the Labour Force Survey and adjust them for known limitations in each. However, the latest adjusted estimates are based on data for the spring (March-May) 1999 Labour Force Survey and this period spans the introduction date for the national minimum wage legislation. As a result, the adjusted estimates may be giving a misleading picture of the effect of the minimum wage legislation since employees might legitimately have been earning below the minimum wage rates in March 1999.
  The currently available estimates were published in an ONS First Release on 14 October and show that the number of people earning below the minimum wage rates fell significantly between 1998 and 1999. A copy of this first release will be available in the House of Commons Library.

  Ofgem
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the projected costs of Ofgem for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [R] [102756]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  This information is contained in a consultation document recently published by Ofgem, "Office of Gas and Electricity Markets Plan and Budget, April 2000-March 2001", copies of which are available in the Library. Financial Decisions on Ofgem's budget for 2000–01 have not yet been taken.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of road accident deaths in each of the last 10 years involved(a) excess alcohol, (b) drugs and (c) both. [100043]

  Mr. Hill
  The percentage of persons killed in accidents where one driver or rider involved was over the legal alcohol limit in each of the last ten years was as follows:

  Percentage

  1989

  15

  1990

  15

  1991

  14

  1992

  16

  1993

  14

  1994

  15

  1995

  15

  1996

  16

  1997

  15

  1998

  13

  Statistics are not available for road accident deaths involving drugs or both alcohol and drugs. The Department has recently completed a three-year sample survey of the incidence of drugs in road accident fatalities

  241W
  for which interim results were released in February 1998. These showed that 6 per cent. of all road users (including drivers, riders, passengers, pedestrians and cyclists) had measurable traces of medicinal drugs and 16 per cent. had traces of illicit drugs (mainly cannabis). The results also showed that 19 per cent. of the sample of drivers and riders killed had taken illicit drugs and consumed alcohol over the legal limit. A full report on the research will be available next year.

  The presence of drugs in an accident victim is not evidence of accident causation, although there may be an association. The picture is further complicated by cannabis, because traces can remain in the body for four weeks or more after use, long after it has ceased to have any effect.

  Local Speed Limits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the guidance given in Circular 1/93 from his Department to local highway authorities about local speed limits; and if he will make a statement. [98729]

  Mr. Hill
  It is likely that the speed review that is due to report shortly will result in some changes to that guidance.

  Duration

  Line

  Station(s)

  Reason

  Since 1995

  Central

  Ongar and North Weald

  Insufficient use to warrant remaining open

  Since 1995

  Piccadilly

  Aldwych

  Insufficient use to warrant remaining open

  1995-April 1998

  Northern

  Mornington Crescent

  Lift replacement

  1995–98

  East London

  Shoreditch, Wapping, Rotherhithe, Surrey Quays, New Cross and new Cross Gate

  Work to upgrade the line, improve the signalling and Thames tunnel

  Early July-late October 1996

  Northern

  London Bridge, Borough and Kennington

  Work on tunnel segments

  November 1996-July 1997

  Bakerloo

  Lambeth North

  Tunnel strengthening under the Thames

  21–30 October 1999

  Bakerloo

  Queens Park to Harrow and Wealdstone

  Track replacement (Railtrack work on Silverlink tracks that are shared with the Underground)

  Spring 2000

  Bakerloo

  Edgware Road

  Lift replacement

  April 2000 (15 April-1 May)

  Victoria

  Pimlico, Vauxhall and Brixton

  Track works to replace life-expired cross-over at Brixton

  The future closures are still provisional and subject to further planning and more detailed consideration. Major works which have only resulted in partial station closures or service disruption have been excluded.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many escalators are not in use at London Underground stations, indicating the stations affected and the length of time escalators have not been in use. [101602]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. However, I understand that at 14 December 1999, 35 escalators out of 381 were out of service1,2.

  These are as follows:

  Date went out of service

  Station

  13 July 1999

  Baker Street

  5 November 1999

  Bethnal Green

  2 December 1999

  Bethnal Green

  Sexual Abuse Victims (Compensation)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department issues to local authorities regarding compensation payments to victims of sexual abuse. [100238]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is no specific guidance issued to local authorities on this issue.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of station closures on each line of the London Underground from 1995 to 1999 and the projected station closures over the next 12 months, indicating the reason for closure in each instance. [100947]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: This is an operational matter for London Underground. I understand that the detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost as it would include:
  Closures as a result of operational issues (within or outside London Underground's control).
  Weekend engineering work.

  However, the following table summarises past and future major planned station closures:

  Date went out of service

  Station

  24 September 1999

  Camden Town

  28 May 1999

  Chancery Lane

  23 June 1999

  Charing Cross

  3 October 1999

  Clapham North

  24 November 1999

  Clapham South

  30 November 1999

  Heathrow Airport

  28 May 1997

  Holborn

  2 November 1999

  Holborn

  3 June 1999

  Hyde Park

  19 November 1999

  London Bridge

  29 March 1999

  Manor House

  26 November 1999

  Manor House

  1 September 1999

  Notting Hill Gate

  6 October 1999

  Notting Hill Gate

  19 June 1999

  Old Street

  24 September 1999

  Old Street

  3 May 1999

  Oxford Circus

  12 August 1999

  Oxford Circus

  24 November 1999

  Piccadilly Circus

  24 September 1999

  Shepherds Bush

  243W

  Date went out of service

  Station

  26 September 1999

  South Wimbledon

  2 October 1999

  South Wimbledon

  2 August 1999

  St. Johns Wood

  21 June 1999

  Tottenham Hale

  22 September 1999

  Waterloo

  30 September 1999

  Waterloo

  30 October 1999

  Waterloo

  30 October 1999

  Waterloo

  16 November 1999

  Waterloo

  16 November 1999

  West Ham

  1 December 1999

  Wood Green

  London Underground have implemented a new programme of expenditure on escalator maintenance and repair of more than £100 million over the years 1998–99 to 2000–01 (1998–99 £26 million, 1999–2000 £44.8 million, 2000–01 £66.1 million).

  In most cases where an escalator is out of order there will be a parallel escalator which is in operation to minimise passenger inconvenience and disruption. This enables stations to remain open while the works are in progress, and at all times safety is the priority.
  1 There are six escalators out of service at the east end of Canary Wharf Station that will not be utilised until there is sufficient passenger demand.
  2There are five "redundant" escalators at Charing Cross Station that lead to the former Jubilee Line platforms that are no longer in use following the closure of these platforms.

  Driving Licence
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to raise the minimum age for holding a driving licence. [101353]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The training and testing of young and newly qualified car drivers is one of the issues being addressed in the Government's review of road safety strategy. The Government have considered a range of measures which might contribute to improving driving standards and road safety. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee recently suggested a minimum period of learning before a car driving test may be taken, and others have suggested changes in the minimum driving age for provisional and/or full licences. However, the Government have not yet reached a conclusion on these matters. We intend to have completed work on a new Road Safety Strategy early in the new year.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [102378]

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

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for each of 244W
  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. [102442]

  Mr. Prescott
  My Department does not keep a breakdown by building. Our policy is to make rooms available on request for religious use and pregnant and nursing mothers. The latest information is that we have 102 rooms dedicated for use by smokers.

  Public Transport Gender Audit
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the gender audit of public transport commissioned by his Department. [102479]

  Mr. Hill
  The gender audit will be used to assist transport planners and operators to develop and implement transport plans and systems that meet women's transport requirements and encourage sustainable development. We are hoping to publish the audit in early 2000.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1999,Official Report, column 277W, on the uniform business rate, when he expects information on the projected yield of the uniform business rate in England for 2000–01 to be available. [102812]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information on each individual local authority's projected yield from uniform business rates in 2000–01 will be available by the end of March 2000.

  Transport Safety (Sleep-related Incidents)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will establish a research group to provide advice on sleep-related incidents across the transport modes. [102506]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of road crashes in which sleep is a contributory factor; and if he will make a statement; [102503]

  (3) what advice he plans to issue to drivers to reduce the incidence of sleep-related road crashes; [102505]

  (4) what research his Department is undertaking into sleep-related road crashes; [102504]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department began a major research programme on fatigue in December 1992, conducted at Loughborough University. The first phase included a comprehensive study of HGV and car drivers. The results suggested that, for car drivers in particular, tiredness is a principal factor in around 10 per cent. of accidents.

  The next phase of the research looked at the relative effectiveness of possible counter measures to tiredness, to ensure that drivers have the best possible advice on how to minimise the risk of a sleep-related accident. Recommendations derived from this work have since been incorporated into the Highway Code.
  245W
  Much of the research undertaken in the road safety area has relevance in rail, air and maritime situations and vice versa. It is also significant that leading experts in this field are very aware of each other's work. A further phase of the Department's research, begun in September, is reviewing successful measures that have been employed elsewhere in the world and in different operating environments. This includes a requirement to develop a targeted programme of publicity and education to counter driver fatigue. When this is completed in September 2000, the Government will consider what action to take, including whether to commission further research.

  Asda Stores Ltd.
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on calling in the application for his determination and examination by a public inquiry in respect of the planning application by Asda Stores Ltd. for the redevelopment of the Queensway Hall site in Dunstable town centre; and if he will make a statement. [101981]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: We are still considering whether call-in of this application would be appropriate. I will ensure that the decision is made within the next two weeks. In reaching our decision we will have regard to the Government's policy on call-in, set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning on 16 June 1999, Official Report, column 138W.

  Rail Regulator
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the projected costs for the Rail Regulator for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [102752]

  Mr. Hill
  1 am advised by the Office of the Rail Regulator that the latest estimated outturn of the cost of running the office for 199–-2000 is £10 million. Provision for 2000–01 was set at £9 million in last year's Comprehensive Spending Review. All expenditure by the Office is offset by licence fees recovered in accordance with the Railways Act 1993.

  Ofwat
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the budgeted costs of Ofwat for the financial years(a) 1999– 2000 and (b) 2000–01. [102746]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Office of Water Services (Ofwat) is a non-Ministerial Government Department statutorily independent of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is financed by Parliament through licence fees received from the regulated water and sewerage companies.

  Ofwat's expenditure profile for the years 1993–94 to 2001–02 is given in figure 22.a of the DETR Departmental Annual Report 1999, Cm 4204. Planned expenditure for 1999–2000 is £11.9 million. Planned expenditure in 2000–01 is £12.7 million.

  Hackney Carriages
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many drivers of Hackney carriages in Greater London have had their licences revoked in each of the last five years. [102451]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of licensed taxi drivers in London (Metropolitan Police District) who have had their licences revoked1 over the last five years is as follows:

  Total number of revocations

  1994

  35

  1995

  34

  1996

  41

  1997

  25

  1998

  54

  1999(January-November)

  23

  1The figures shown are for the initial decisions by the Licensing Authority, some of which were subsequently reduced to a period of suspension or set aside following:

  (a) reconsideration of the original decision at a personal hearing; and/or

  (b) an appeal to Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, under section 17 of the Transport Act 1985.

  Millennium Dome (Public Transport)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public transport will be operational between Central London and the Millennium Dome on (a) 31 December and (b) 1 January. [102801]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: There will be no public transport to the Dome on 31 December. For security reasons there will be a traffic exclusion area around the Dome (which will not be open to the public). Bus routes will be subject to local diversions and North Greenwich station will also be closed to the public.

  The first public viewing of the Millennium Experience opens at noon on 1 January to a limited audience of 20,000 people. North Greenwich station re-opens at 09:00 on 1 January, from which time a Sunday service of approximately one train every 6-12 minutes will operate on the Jubilee Line. The 188 bus service, which operates between Russell Square and North Greenwich station, recommences with a Sunday service from 10:00. Normal Sunday services will recommence on rail lines from central London from 11:00, at which time the two new Millennium Transit bus services will also commence operation between Charlton and Greenwich rail stations and the Dome.

  Waste Management Licences
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the surrender policy for waste management licences issues by the Environment Agency has been launched; and if it is his policy that licence holders who are waiting to surrender their licences having ceased trading should be required to continue paying for operating licences while the agency considers its surrender policy. [102980]
  247W
  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency wrote to licence holders to provide advance notice of the launch of its surrender policy on 1 October 1999. The Agency's letter explained that, after staff training to ensure consistent implementation, the policy would be used from 1 January 2000 to determine surrender applications. Licence holders have a legal obligation to pay subsistence charges while a licence remains in force.

  Peat Conservation
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's target is for increasing the percentage of the total market for soil improvers and growing media supplied by non-peat material. [103021]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A target was set in MPG 13 "Guidelines for Peat Provision in England" of 40 per cent. of the total market requirements for soil improvers and growing media to be supplied by non-peat materials by 2005.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is on the purchase and use of peat for its own operations and activities; and what performance target his Department has set to reduce current peat use. [103024]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' policy on all slow renewables such as peat is to substitute them with organic waste such as compost, manure, leaf mould, bark chipping and coir. This policy is included in the DETR Greening Operations Policy Statement.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the total market for soil improvers and growing media was supplied by non-peat material in 1998. [103022]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Non-peat materials accounted for 32 per cent. of the total market in 1998.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the recent report of his Department's peat working group.[103025]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Three copies were placed in the Library on 1 December 1999.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government are on track in meeting their target for increasing the amount of non-peat material sold as soil improvers and growing media. [103023]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There has been a slow but steady increase in the proportion of non-peat material used as soil improvers and growing media. In 1993, 28 per cent. of the total market was met by non-peat materials. This increased to 29 per cent. in 1997 and 32 per cent. in 1998. The report of the Working Group on Peat Extraction and Related Matters published last month identified short-term measures which could be taken to increase the rate of uptake of non-peat materials. If the producers and retailers of growing media respond in the 248W
  matters of labelling, dilution and developing performance standards for peat and alternatives, I am confident we have a good chance of meeting this target.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when Mr. Peter Parkman, Chelmsford Borough Council Enforcement Officer, will receive a reply to his letter of 24 September to Peter Alsop of the Transport Commissioner's Office, Cambridge, concerning regulations governing small buses. [102867]

  Mr. Hill
  A substantive reply was sent to Mr. Parkman on 30 September. A further letter dealing with the one outstanding point has now been sent.

  Local Authorities (Best Value Initiative)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the rights of appeal for local people who consider that their ideas of best value are being ignored by their local authority. [103027]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Act 1999 places best value authorities under a statutory duty to consult with local people as to how the duty of best value can be met after 1 April 2000. This is reinforced by a requirement to consult with business and other interests in considering alternative ways of providing services.

  There is no explicit right of appeal, as the Government take the view that where there are conflicting views it is for best-value authorities to judge how the duty is to be met in the light of all the relevant circumstances. They will be expected to provide a clear rationale for the decisions which they reach, and to justify these to local people every year in their Best Value Performance Plans and to independent auditors and inspectors acting on behalf of local people. All local authorities are ultimately accountable to local people through the ballot box.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local authorities about determining best value in relation to letting contracts for services. [102996]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance to best-value authorities was published by my Department on 14 December (DETR Circular 10/99). This makes clear that authorities should establish a clear policy on the evaluation and assessment of alternative ways of delivering high-quality services at acceptable costs.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which district councils in Wiltshire have met his target for recycling(a) domestic and (b) industrial waste. [102871]

  Mr. Mullin
  (a) There is no recycling target which each individual local authority is expected to meet. There is a national goal to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste as soon as possible, hopefully by 2005. By 2010 we hope to see 30 per cent. of household waste

  249W
  being recycled or composted, and in the longer term we hope to see a third of all household waste being dealt with in this way.

  Under our Best Value Initiative, performance indicators are being developed for local authority waste services. From these, authorities will be expected to derive targets for their own performance on waste, having regard to any national goals we set in the forthcoming National Waste Strategy. I emphasise, though, that local targets should take account of local assessments of the Best Practicable Environmental Option, and will not therefore necessarily be at the same level as our national goals. I fully expect some authorities to put forward targets that exceed those that we propose, and others to put forward lower targets.

  (b) We have no targets for the recycling of industrial waste by local authorities. Although the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities the discretion to collect industrial waste, they are under no obligation to do so and few do.

  Secure Stations Scheme (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria must be met to achieve Secure Station status; and which stations in Wiltshire have been awarded such status. [102874]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secure Stations Scheme is designed to improve and standardise good security practices at all overground and underground stations. To become an accredited Secure Station, each station operator needs to work with their local British Transport Police Crime Prevention Operator to ensure that their station meets the national standards on design and management to cut down crime. Operators also have to conduct an independent passenger survey to see whether passengers feel safe at the station and provide evidence that crime rates are low.

  No stations in Wiltshire have yet achieved Secure Stations status.

  Local Authority Housing
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he intends to give local housing authorities on preparing business plans for their housing stock as part of the Government's new financial framework for local authority housing. [103347]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of our plans to introduce resource accounting to local authority housing finance, I have today published for consultation draft guidance for local housing authorities on preparing business plans.

  The new financial framework will help authorities to take a more businesslike approach to the management of their housing stock, and business plans are a key part of the framework. The draft guidance and the associated models show how authorities can identify and assess alternative strategies for managing, maintaining and investing in their housing assets. I hope that authorities will take the opportunity to comment on the draft guidance and will look constructively at how it can be used to make the best use for current and future tenants of their housing assets.

  Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House.
  250W
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to announce the outcome of the consultation on proposals to tackle overhanging debt arising from a housing transfer. [103348]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am announcing today the outcome of the consultation on how we propose to tackle overhanging debt which arises when the capital receipt from a housing transfer is less than the attributable housing debt.

  A consultation paper issued by the Department in August set out four alternative approaches to helping authorities deal with the overhanging debt: continuing to pay subsidy, through either the Housing Revenue Account or Revenue Support Grant subsidy schemes; providing a one-off payment to assist with the repayment of the debt; and transferring the debt to the acquiring landlord. The consultation paper made clear that the Government's preference was for the one-off payment option.

  The majority of the responses supported our proposals to provide assistance to the local authority to repay its housing debt. We propose to implement this option.

  I have placed in the Libraries of the House and the Vote Office copies of a guidance note setting out the detailed arrangements.

  Local Transport Infrastructure
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will announce the allocation of capital resources for expenditure on local transport infrastructure in 2000–01. [103349]

  Mr. Hill
  This is the second year of the three-year £2.4 billion package for local transport under the Comprehensive Spending Review, including £700 million of additional expenditure.

  The total allocation for 2000–01 will be £754.9 million, which will provide for major improvements to local transport infrastructure.

  Schemes approved or provisionally approved include innovative proposals for integrating public transport, providing greater travel choice; new bypasses to take through traffic away from local communities, improving their quality of life.

  We have also made provision of £301 million for highway maintenance—up 24 per cent. on this year's figure and in line with our commitment to reverse previous cuts in this area. In addition, we have increased general allocation for public transport, minor road improvements, walking, cycling and safety schemes.

  In addition, we are providing an extra £18 million for local authorities to improve public transport ahead of the introduction of congestion charging or workplace parking schemes.

  Local Transport Plans replace the Transport Policies and Programmes regime, and are the cornerstone of our integrated transport policy. They provide for a longer-term, more strategic approach and greater certainty of funding for Local Authorities.
  251W
  Copies of the Press Notice, containing a full analysis of the settlement, have been placed in the Library of the House. They have also been placed in Members' mail boxes in the Members' Post Office counter.

  Railways Bill
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Government's response to the report on the Railways Bill by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. [103369]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am today presenting as a Command Paper (CM 4538) the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on the Railways Bill (HC 827).

  The Committee's report has informed the revised railway provisions now included in the Transport Bill. Our response also covers the Committee's recommendations which did not relate directly to the Railways Bill. We will make a substantive response on transport safety regulation to the Committee when we have received and considered the results of our transport safety review.

  Beacon Council Scheme
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the first Beacon Councils; and if he will make a statement. [103538]

  Ms Armstrong
  We intend to announce the Beacon Councils for 2000–01 on Monday 20 December. We will publish the First Report of the Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils, at the same time as the announcement giving details of the Panel's recommendations on Beacon Councils, together with a brochure "The Beacon Council Scheme: Where to Go and What to See", setting out the best practice the Beacons have to offer. Copies of the two publications will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he proposes to carry out the review of offences relating to the entry into the sea of noxious, poisonous or polluting matter following marine casualties, which he announced in response to Lord Donaldson's report on salvage and intervention and their command and control. [103550]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend has decided that the review should have the following terms of reference:To review the basis of, and the systems for, prosecutions in the United Kingdom for offences related to the entry into the sea of noxious, poisonous or polluting matter following marine casualties. The Review will consider how these systems should reflect the public interest of having appropriate sanctions available under the criminal law in cases where such entry occurs while not discouraging appropriate prevention, salvage and clean-up operations.

  The Review will focus on offences under Part III of the Water Resources Act 1991 in respect of England and Wales and Part VI of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, in
  252W
  so far as they relate to entry of such matter resulting from marine casualties and their associated salvage and clean-up operations.

  The Review will also consider, in so far as it is appropriate to do so, the offence of public nuisance (including the statutory nuisance procedure) and offences relating to the entry of such matter from ships in cases which may not in themselves represent or follow marine casualties.

  The results of the Review will also, if possible, take account of the outcome of the appeal against sentencing of Milford Haven Port Authority following its prosecution in connection with the Sea Empress casualty.

  The Review will be carried out by a consultant, Mr. Colin Ingram, working under the supervision of a team of DETR officials. Since the Merchant Shipping legislation is a reserved matter, while the water legislation is a devolved matter, this team will need to work in close co-operation with the devolved administrations. All organisations that are known to have an interest will be invited to make submissions to the review. The invitation will also be posted on the DETR website, and we shall welcome other submissions.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to make more effective use of roadside speed cameras; and if he will make a statement. [103549]

  Mr. Hill
  A number of pilot schemes to test new funding arrangements for speed and traffic light cameras will start on 1 April 2000. This will increase the number of cameras deployed, further deter speed and red light running and thereby achieve the Government's road safety objective. Each pilot scheme will involve Local Authorities, Magistrates Courts, the police, and in some cases the Highways Agency and Crown Prosecution Service. The schemes will be based in eight police areas: Essex, Northampton, Thames Valley, Nottingham, South Wales, Cleveland, Lincolnshire and Strathclyde. In the light of the results of the pilot schemes, consideration will be given to the extension of the funding arrangements nationally.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the separation distances between genetically modified crops and non-genetically modified crops, including the farm-scale trials; and if he will list the proposed revised distances for each crop. [99534]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has secured a commitment from the industry group SCIMAC to review on a regular basis its guidelines for growing GM crops, which were published in May 1999, but as yet there are no proposals for revised separation distances. We are convening another meeting between the GM and organic sectors to discuss safeguards for organic production, including separation distances between GM and organic crops.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made on a common foreign and security policy at the Helsinki summit. [100990]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: European Union Heads of Government at Helsinki agreed Conclusions on a number of subjects under the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including on South-Eastern Europe, the Middle East Peace Process, human rights, and Macao. They also adopted a separate Declaration on Chechnya. In addition, they agreed Conclusions adopting two Presidency reports, one on Strengthening the Common European Policy on Security and Defence and one on Non-Military Crisis Management, as part of a strengthened common European policy on security and defence.

  Western Sahara
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he (i) has had and (ii) plans to have, with(a) the Government of Morocco and (b) Polisario to discuss the situation in Western Sahara and the UN referendum process [102491]

  Mr. Hain
  During my visit to Morocco between 30 November and 2 December I discussed the Western Sahara in several high-level meetings with Moroccan Ministers. FCO officials meet regularly with the Polisario in London, New York and the refugee camps in Tindouf.

  British Prisoners Abroad (Clemency Pleas)
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of the review of Government policy on supporting pleas for clemency by British nationals imprisoned abroad. [103371]

  Mr. Hain
  We have reviewed our policy on making representations about the convictions and sentencing of British prisoners abroad to the authorities of the countries where they are detained.

  At present we consider making such representations if, when all legal remedies have been exhausted, the British national and their lawyer have evidence of a miscarriage or denial of justice.

  We are extending this to include those cases where fundamental violations of the British national's human rights had demonstrably altered the course of justice. In such cases, we would also consider supporting their request for an appeal to any official human rights body in the country concerned, and subsequently giving advice on how to take their cases to relevant international human rights mechanisms.

  We have decided not to change the policy on supporting clemency pleas. We will continue to base these pleas only on compassionate grounds, namely where a
  254W
  prisoner is terminally ill or when a close relative is terminally ill and their death will leave children or elderly relatives with no one to care for them.

  Bonded Labour (Subcontinent)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Government have had with the Nepalese Government regarding the incidence of bonded labour in Nepal; and what representations his Department has made to the Nepalese Government to ratify ILO Convention No. 29. [102807]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Embassy and DFID office in Kathmandu are both actively involved in helping the Nepalese to address the issue of bonded labour. DFID Nepal is working to develop a strategy for realising the rights of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in Nepal.

  The ILO in Kathmandu has confirmed that the Nepalese Government is in the process of ratifying ILO convention 29. It is hoped that it will be ratified within the next six months.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will make representations to Pakistan and India requesting them to undertake surveys, at federal, provincial and district level, of the number of bonded labourers in each of these countries. [102808]

  Mr. Hain
  We are deeply concerned by all forms of bonded labour. I raised the issue with Indian Ministers during my visit there in November. We have also raised our concerns with Pakistan. We have welcomed the steps which the Governments of India and Pakistan have taken to reduce child labour. We have no plans to ask them to undertake surveys on this issue.

  International Students
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the number of students studying in the UK and ensure that the target number of students from(a) China and (b) Hong Kong by 2000–01 will be met.[102701]

  Mr. Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  In June 1999 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an initiative to attract to the UK an extra 75,000 international students by 2005. The target relates to students who do not warrant a home fee classification. China and Hong Kong have priority in this initiative but recruitment targets have not been set for particular countries.

  The initiative includes four main components. First, a world-wide marketing campaign, using a "UK Education Brand" and marketing materials to promote the high quality of UK education, will begin early in 2000. There will be enhanced promotion activity in many regions, including China and Hong Kong, where British education exhibitions, clearing missions and MBA fairs are planned. Second, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs aims to expand the Chevening Scholarship Scheme, with up to 1,000 extra scholarships awarded each year. Third, we have made it easier for international students to work part-time and in

  255W
  vacations. Fourth, visa and entry procedures are being made more user-friendly for students. Through this package of measures the Government are helping UK education institutions to increase their marketing capability overseas and thereby increase international student enrolments.

DEFENCE

  Naval Vessels
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Naval vessels made overseas visits during the last 12 months; and if he will list(a) the countries visited and (b) the length of each visit. [102709]

  Ship

  Exercise

  Reason for withdrawal

  HMS Invincible

  JFTEX

  Redeployment to Gulf

  HMS Northumberland

  Aurora 99

  Redeployment as Atlantic Patrol Task (North)

  HMS Ledbury

  Usbaltops

  Change to maintenance dates

  HMS Gloucester

  Argonaut 99

  Operational tasking

  HMS Newcastle

  Argonaut 99

  Operational tasking

  HMS Cattistock

  Open Spirit

  National tasking

  HMS Montrose

  Northern Lights

  Operational tasking

  HMS Monmouth

  Northern Lights

  Revised training schedules

  HMS Fearless

  Northern Lights

  Deployed to Mediterranean

  HMS Ocean

  Northern Lights

  Deployed to Mediterranean

  HMS Edinburgh

  Northern Lights

  Deployed to Mediterranean

  HMS Sandown

  Sandy Coast

  To accommodate Gulf Deployment

  HMS Edinburgh

  Falcon Nut

  Operational tasking

  HMS Westminster

  Flotex

  In Year Budget Management Measure

  Flight-Lieutenant Deborah Burns
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a D Notice has been issued in respect of Flight-Lieutenant Deborah Burns, Royal Air Force. [102568]

  Mr. Spellar
  The six standing Defence Advisory Notices are concerned with matters of national security, and are not issued in response to individual cases. No Notice has been issued therefore, nor invoked, in respect of Flight-Lieutenant Burns.

  RAF Chinook
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what incidents have involved RAF Chinooks in the last two weeks of November; and if he will make a statement. [102565]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Between 14 and 30 November there have been 12 reported incidents involving RAF Chinooks. Eleven of these were minor day-to-day occurrences but one incident, which occurred during a training exercise on 25 November 1999 and involved damage to the rear of the aircraft, is being investigated by a RAF Board of Inquiry. Nobody was injured. After carrying out a preliminary assessment the Board reported that they had no urgent recommendations to make affecting the Chinook fleet as a whole. Their investigation is continuing and a summary of the Board's final report will be placed in the Library of the House in the normal way.
  256W
  Mr. Spellar
  I am placing in the Library of the House a list of visits to overseas ports made by Royal Navy vessels between 1 January and 13 December 1999. In addition ships deployed under the Atlantic Patrol Task (South) and the ice patrol vessel HMS Endurance make frequent visits to the UK South Atlantic Overseas Territories.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 560W, concerning the withdrawal of naval vessels from planned exercises, if he will list (a) the exercises the vessels were withdrawn from and (b) the reasons for withdrawal. [102714]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RN withdrew ships from the following exercises for the reasons stated:

  Bosnia
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on troop levels in Bosnia. [103548]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO has agreed to revise arrangements for manning the headquarters in the UK sector of SFOR. We have worked closely with our Dutch, Canadian and Czech partners on plans. This will allow a reduction in UK forces in Bosnia from around 3,300 to some 2,000 in the course of next year, while fully maintaining the operational effectiveness of SFOR. This reduction is in addition to the withdrawal of some 900 UK troops announced in late October, and will further reduce overstretch in the British Army.

  Gulf Veterans
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has obtained regarding the number of veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict that have died, and the underlying causes of death; and if he will make a statement. [103469]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has reviewed its own records and has found that between 1 April 1991 and 22 November 1999 (the latest date for which information is currently available) there were 413 deaths of UK armed forces Gulf veterans (out of a total of 53,462 deployed). The causes of death for 387 of the deaths have been determined and are set out in the table. Sufficient information on the causes of death in the remaining 26 cases is not currently available; work is continuing to establish this.
  257W
  The Ministry of Defence also has information on the number and causes of deaths in a similar sized comparative sample of armed forces personnel in service in January 1991 but who did not deploy to the Gulf. This information has been used by the Ministry of Defence funded epidemiological study undertaken by Professors Nicola Cherry and Gary Macfarlane at Manchester University. The results of this study, commissioned by the Medical Research Council, have been submitted to a leading medical journal for consideration for publication. They will show whether or not the Gulf veterans are experiencing a higher mortality rate than their peers and if so what the causes might be.

  It is important that this study is independently peer reviewed to ensure publication in a leading medical journal. To ensure this my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has withheld the information on the comparative group under Exemption 11a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  UK armed forces Gulf veterans' deaths 1 April 1991 to 22 November 1999–classified according to the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD-9) (1977)1

  (ICD-9) (1977) Chapter

  Cause of death

  Number of deaths

  I

  Infections and parasitic diseases

  3

  II

  Neoplasms2

  56

  V

  Mental disorders

  7

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs

  6

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system3

  48

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  4

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  5

  XVI

  Signs symptoms and ill-defined conditions

  2

  E.XVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning of which:

  256

  Transport accidents

  119

  Other accidents

  53

  Accidental poisoning

  9

  Suicide4

  67

  Homicide

  3

  Operations of war5

  3

  Undetermined accidental deaths

  2

  1Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death. World Health Organisation. Geneva (1977). ISBN 92 4 154 004 4.

  2 Neoplasm is the medical term for a new or abnormal growth of tissue. All the deaths included in the table were from cancers or leukaemia.

  3The term includes heart disease and stroke.

  4The term includes self-inflicted injury and cases where it is undetermined whether the inquiry was accidentally or purposely inflicted. This includes an open verdict at inquest.

  5 The term includes deaths as a result of military operations and exercises.

  Forces Personnel (Traffic Accidents)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many road traffic accidents involving(a) civilian vehicles and (b) military vehicles driven by forces personnel, and handled by the Royal Military Police, have been the subject of (i) summary trials and (ii) Courts Martial in each of the last three years. [102870]

  Mr. Spellar
  Figures for such accidents involving forces personnel reported to the Royal Military Police are available only for 1996, 1997 and 1998.
  258W

  Year

  Military vehicles

  Private vehicles

  1996

  1,365

  767

  1997

  970

  454

  1998

  959

  353

  Statistics for military offences dealt with summarily are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Work has however begun to set up the administrative machinery required to hold such statistics in the future.

  Offences against the Road Traffic Act 1988 or Disobedience to Standing Orders dealt with by Army Court Martial are set out in the following table but cannot be broken down into civilian or military vehicles.

  Courts Martial

  Year

  Number

  1996

  8

  1997

  6

  1998

  14

  Total

  28

  All the Courts Martial were for Driving Under the Influence, only five of them involving accidents. In the United Kingdom the civil authorities deal with offences committed on non-governmental property.

  Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Night Observation and Countersurveillance Centre
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the annual cost of the STANOC centre at Larkhill; which police forces they have assisted in the past two years; and what charges STANOC have made; [102872]

  (2) if he will list (a) police forces, (b) other Government departments and agencies and (c) companies assisted by STANOC in each of the past two years; and what charges have been levied in each case. [102873]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Annual cost of The Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Night Observation and Counter-surveillance Centre (STANOC) is £0.24 million.

  The Centre gives assistance to the police and other Government Departments under the provisions of Military Aid to the Civil Powers, and to Industry. Assistance to the police and other Government Departments is provided without charge. The Centre charges industry for help and advice on matters relating to private venture work and work in pursuit of overseas contracts; advice to industry on UK MOD matters is given without charge. I am withholding the information on the specific charges levied in each case under section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can report, however, that total recoveries since 1 January 1998 amount to £9,882. It is not possible accurately to break the figures down for each year as much of the work carried out by the Centre spans the whole period.
  259W
  The organisations supported by STANOC during the Service Exercises past two years are as follows:

  Metropolitan Police

  Greater Manchester Police

  Somerset and Avon Police

  Dorset Police

  Sussex Police

  Norfolk Police

  West Midlands Police

  Shropshire police

  Hampshire Police

  National Crime Squad

  Police Scientific and Development Branch

  Devon and Cornwall Police

  Lothian and Borders Police Asbestos

  Strathclyde Police

  South Wales Police

  Durham Police

  Lancashire Police

  Wiltshire police

  MOD Police

  Jersey Police

  HM Customs and Excise

  The Security Service

  National Criminal Intelligence Service

  Industry

  SWAROWSKI

  ETI

  Cincinatti

  Thompson CSF

  GEC

  Pilkington

  Wylam Defence Systems

  Avimo

  Bae

  Baxall

  Barrington International

  Barracuda

  Accuracy International

  GKN

  Raytheon

  Litton

  Bridport Aviation

  Flectalon

  Colebrand

  Roctec

  MFC

  Royal Ordnance

  RACAL

  Gore UK

  Arkonia

  CDSS

  ATSI

  LEICA

  Service Exercises
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many planned exercises involving(a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army, (c) the RAF and (d) reserve forces were cancelled or went ahead without UK involvement in each of the years 1996 to 1999 indicating in each case (i) the name of the planned exercise, (ii) the estimated cost of each planned exercise to his Department had UK forces taken part, (iii) the actual cost after cancellation and (iv) the reason for cancellation; and if he will make a statement.[102679]

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

  Asbestos
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all Royal Naval vessels are free of asbestos in(a) cabins, (b) engine rooms and (c) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [102625]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Royal Naval vessels do contain asbestos, but in all cases there is suitable protection to safeguard the personnel on board. my Department is pursuing a comprehensive programme to eliminate asbestos wherever practicable and soon as possible.

  160 (Wales) Brigade
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to re-organise 160 (Wales) Brigade Headquarters at Brecon Barracks. [102839]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no current plans to reorganise 160 (Wales) Brigade Headquarters. However, the role and function of the Headquarters will be addressed as part of a wider review of all regional brigades throughout Land Command. This review will commence in January 2000 and is scheduled to report by Easter 2000.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [102366]

  Dr. Reid
  Decisions on the format of minutes of meetings will depend on the nature of the discussion.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [102330]

  Dr. Reid
  No rooms are currently set aside for ethnic minority religious use or pregnant and nursing mothers within buildings occupied by my Department, although appropriate arrangements can be made if necessary. One room is set aside for smokers.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 Scotland. [102163]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not held centrally and could be extracted by police forces only with considerable effort and at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homicides were committed in Scotland using(a) shotguns, (b) rifles, (c) handguns and (d) other firearms in each police force area in Scotland in each of the last five years and the current year to date; and how many homicides were committed with the use of a legally held firearm used by the owner, broken down by the type of weapon used, over the same period [102164]

  Dr. Reid
  The following table details the number of homicides committed in Scotland using(a) shotguns, (b) rifles, (c) handguns and (d) other firearms in each police force area in Scotland in each of the last five years and the current year to date. Current year information relates to January to March 1999 only. Information on the number of homicides committed with the use of a legally held firearm used by the owner is not collected centrally.

  Number of homicides recorded by the police in which a firearm was alleged to have been used by police force area and main firearm used, Scotland, 1994—Quarter 1, 1999

  Police force area

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Pistol/revolver

  Other firearms1

  Total

  1994

  Northern

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Fife

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  1

  1

  1

  2

  5

  Total

  2

  2

  3

  2

  9

  1995

  Tayside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  1

  —

  1

  8

  10

  Total

  2

  —

  1

  8

  11

  1996

  Northern

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grampian

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tayside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Renfrewshire Council2

  provider

  Number of placements available

  project

  Nature of provision

  Action Environment Ltd.

  22

  CARTS Valley and Planning

  Construction of Footpaths along banks of river, building walls and carrying out hard landscaping for local community wood project.

  Heatwise

  24

  Home Insulation

  Installing loft insulation in customers' homes, maintenance and care of tools and communication with customers.

  Heatwise

  20

  Classroom Assistants

  Helping to prepare people to apply to become classroom assistants in primary schools.

  1Excluding East Renfrewshire

  262W

  Number of homicides recorded by the police in which a firearm was alleged to have been used by police force area and main firearm used, Scotland,1994—Quarter 1,1999

  Police force area

  Shotgun

  Rifle

  Pistol/revolver

  Other firearms1

  Total

  Central2

  —

  —

  17

  —

  17

  Strathclyde

  1

  —

  1

  3

  5

  Total

  4

  —

  18

  3

  25

  1997

  Strathclyde

  1

  —

  5

  —

  6

  Total

  1

  —

  5

  —

  6

  1998

  Fife

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  1

  —

  1

  3

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  3

  —

  1

  3

  7

  Quarter 1, 1999

  Strathclyde

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1Includes those firearms which were seen but not established and those not seen.

  2Includes the 17 victims of the Dunblane incident which occurred on 13 March 1996.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of registering an elector on the electoral register in Scotland; and what is the cost of entering a name to correct an omission from the register. [102546]

  Dr. Reid
  The estimated overall cost of registration of electors in Scotland is in the region of £4 million per year, or just under a pound per elector. The cost of making a single correction to the electoral register would not be very much greater than the cost of registering an elector.

  New Deal Environmental Taskforce
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what projects are currently being undertaken by the New Deal Environmental Taskforce in the constituencies of Greenock and Inverclyde and West Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement. [102624]

  Dr. Reid
  The projects currently taking place in Greenock and West Renfrewshire are:
  263W

  Inverclyde Council

  Provider

  Number of placements available

  Project

  Nature of provision

  SOLAS/Invest

  8

  Home Insulation

  Draught proofing, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and insulation of pipes and tanks.

  Landwise

  12

  Strone Farm

  Landscaping and labouring duties.

  Clyde Muirshiel

  16

  Various

  Assisting with habitat management and woodland/conservation plan implementation. Will deal with people on a day to day basis, leading guided walks, assisting with biological recording and practical conservation work.

  A further proposal has been submitted by Action Environment to offer 44 New Deal clients ETF opportunities in environmental enhancement, hard and soft landscaping and grounds and building maintenance.

CABINET OFFICE

  "Public Bodies 1999"
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she will publish "Public Bodies 1999"; and if she will make a statement. [103463]

  Mr. Stringer
  "Public Bodies 1999" was published earlier today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  "Public Bodies 1999" provides a range of statistical information on over 1,500 public bodies and over 35,000 public appointments. It focuses primarily on non-departmental public bodies, but also includes information on nationalised industries, certain public corporations and those NHS bodies to which Ministers make appointments. "Public Bodies 1999" is UK-wide in its coverage and includes information on those public bodies which now operate in devolved areas in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  "Public Bodies 1999" shows that the Government are making steady progress in reducing the overall number of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). The number of such bodies now stands at 1,057—a reduction of 6 per cent. over the 1997 total of 1,128.

  "Public Bodies 1999" also shows that the Government are succeeding in increasing diversity among those serving of the board of public bodies. As at 1 September 1999, 33 per cent. of public appointments were held by women and 4.7 per cent. were held by members of ethnic minorities. This compares favourably to September 1997, when 32 per cent. of public appointments were held by women and 3.6 per cent. by members of ethnic minorities. We will continue working hard to encourage more women and more members of ethnic minorities to take up positions in public life.

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of the total workforce in her 264W
  Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps she is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in her Department. [102739]

  Mr. Stringer
  Making a dramatic improvement in diversity is a central part of the civil service reform programme. We are taking action across the civil service to address the under-representation of ethnic minorities particularly at senior levels. We have set a target to double the number of staff from ethnic minority backgrounds in the senior civil service to 3.2 per cent. by 2004–05.

  The Cabinet Office is putting in place measures to help achieve corporate action, including: the appointment of an outreach worker who is working with university ethnic minority groups to build a better understanding of the opportunities in the Fast Stream; appointing a Senior Adviser to establish further pools of secondees and potential recruits and act as a source of advice to departments; planning to hold a civil service ethnic minority careers fair annually.

  The Cabinet Office, as an organisation, has developed and is implementing, a Diversity Action Plan, which includes objectives and actions for setting targets for recruitment and selection; retention; and progression of under-represented groups, strengthening links with ethnic minority communities (open-days and seminars), summer work placements for school pupils, and a mentoring scheme for Cabinet Office staff and external ethnic minority undergraduates.

  As at 1 April 1999 9.02 per cent. of permanent staff in the Department were of ethnic minority origin.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payment Modernisation Programme
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 372W, what part of the benefit payment modernisation programme will not be completed until 31 December 2005; and when the computerisation of the entire Post Office network will be completed. [103000]

  Mr. Rooker
  Within the Payment Modernisation Programme, the Department will move away from paper
  265W
  based methods of payment to payment by Automated Credit Transfer (ACT), a more modern secure and efficient way of paying benefits.

  It is envisaged that the migration of customers from orderbooks and girocheques to ACT will take place over a two year period beginning in 2003 and completing in 2005. This will be managed carefully and in a way that will not put at risk the efficient distribution of benefit payments. Benefit recipients who wish to do so will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash at post offices.

  The automation of the network of almost 19,000 post offices is due for completion in 2001.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his timetable for issuing draft regulations on stakeholder pensions. [102507]

  Mr. Rooker
  We aim to issue draft regulations on stakeholder pensions for consultation early next year, in advance of the regulations being laid by around Easter.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many companies are currently engaged in firm negotiations with the Government to introduce stakeholder pensions. [103001]

  Mr. Rooker
  The pension and financial services industry is involved in the consultation process on the detail of stakeholder pensions policy.

  Benefits (Method of Payment)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants receive(a) retirement pension and (b) other benefits from post offices in each Scottish parliamentary constituency; [102691]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners and other benefit claimants who do not have bank accounts; and what assessment he has made of the impact on such claimants of his plans to pay benefits directly into claimants' bank accounts; [102748]

  (3) what estimates he has made of the number of (a) retirement pension claimants and (b) other benefit claimants within Scotland who do not have a bank account, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [102690]

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

  As at 31 August 1999, the total number of customers in receipt of Retirement Pension and Widows Pension in Great Britain, receiving their pension through the post office was 5.6 million.

  As at 31 August 1999, the number of customers in Great Britain in receipt of benefits (other than Retirement Pension and Jobseeker's Allowance) receiving their benefit through the post office was around 11.6 million.
  266W
  Estimates of the number of benefit claimants who do not have a bank account vary widely. From information available, the number of retirement benefit recipients who do not have a bank account is estimated to be in the region of 10–20 per cent. The number of other benefit recipients without a bank account is estimated to be in the region of 20 per cent.

  We have decided to move to automated credit transfer (ACT) from 2003 as a modern, more secure and efficient method of paying benefits. People are increasingly choosing ACT as their preferred method of payment. The Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. will be working together to build on this trend to ensure that, from 2003, ACT offers an attractive choice to benefit recipients, opening up access to a wider range of banking and other financial services, while continuing to offer access to cash at post office counters.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will reach retirement age and begin to claim the state retirement pension between 12 September 1999 and 12 January 2000. [102632]

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

  It is estimated that around 180,000 people will reach State pension age between the 12 September 1999 and 12 January 2000.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD).

  2. Future numbers of new claimants of State Retirement Pension are not estimated by GAD. The numbers of people reaching State pension age is the closest available approximation.

  Cold Weather Payments (Scotland)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the(a) number of claimants and (b) cost of cold weather payments in the (i) Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber and (ii) Ross, Skye and Inverness, West constituencies in (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999 and (4) 2000. [101960]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for Peter Mathison the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Stewart, dated 15 December 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what estimate had been made of (A) the number of claimants and (B) the cost of cold weather payments in the (i) Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber and (ii) Ross, Skye and Inverness west constituencies in (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999 and (4) 2000.

  267W
  As you may be aware, Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) are triggered if the temperature has been recorded as an average of 0?C or below over any seven consecutive days, or, a forecast shows the temperature is likely to average 0?C or below over the next seven days, for a weather station area. Temperature information is collected through a network of 72 weather stations. Each weather station covers specified postcode districts. No separate claim is

  Number of qualifying recipients by weather station and estimated cost by constituency

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  A

  B

  A

  B

  A

  B

  Triggers

  Estimated recipients B

  Triggers

  Estimated recipients

  Triggers

  Estimated recipients

  Weather station

  Aulbea

  0

  238

  0

  349

  0

  317

  Loch Glascarnoch

  5

  1,880

  3

  1,904

  2

  1,928

  Lusa

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  499

  Waterstein Head

  —

  —

  0

  519

  —

  —

  Tiree

  0

  751

  0

  140

  0

  152

  Wick

  2

  1,981

  1

  1,977

  0

  1,939

  Tulloch Bridge

  4

  1,935

  0

  11,935

  2

  11,935

  Kinloss

  3

  8,147

  0

  8,372

  0

  8,027

  Estimated cost

  Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (£)

  —

  96,180

  —

  24,080

  —

  18,544

  Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (£)

  —

  84,107

  —

  —

  —

  12,217

  1These figures for Tulloch Bridge are extrapolations from 1996–97, not true estimates.

  Notes:

  1. Kinloss and Tulloch Bridge stations serve both constituencies. The other six stations do not serve Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber. Each station also serves areas outside these two constituencies. The total estimated recipients for all the weather stations is therefore substantially higher than the total of estimated recipients in the two constituencies. The calculation of the estimated cost takes this into account.

  2. The figures in the table represent an estimate of the actual total cost per constituency. The cost of triggers at Kinloss and Tulloch Bridge has been split equally between the two constituencies.

  3. The estimated cost has been calculated by multiplying the number of triggers (A) by the number of estimated recipients served by each station (B) by the cost per CWP (£8.50), then multiplied by the number of total qualifying individuals in each constituency (C) (from the following table) divided by the total estimated recipients served by all relevant stations for each constituency.

  4. Waterstein Head station did not exist in 1996–97. Its catchment was drawn from Tiree for 1997–98. It was then replaced by another new station, Lusa, in 1998–99.

  5. It is not possible to estimate the cost or number of payments for a future period for the year 2000 as CWPs are dependent on prevailing weather conditions and the caseload at the time.

  Estimated number of qualifying individuals August 1997 to August 1999 by parliamentary constituency area

  C 1997

  C 1998

  C 1999

  Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber

  3,100

  3,300

  3,400

  Ross, Skye and Inverness, West

  3,800

  3,700

  3,700

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of the Income Support caseload and figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Some income-based Jobseeker's Allowance recipients may qualify, but the numbers are estimated to be negligible so have not been included in the estimates of qualifying individuals.

  3. Estimates are based on a sample of cases, and are subject to a degree of sampling error and therefore provide only a guide to the situation.

  4. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 1999 version 1 of the Postcode Directory and as such represent constituency boundaries as at 1 May 1997.

  Appendix

  There have been significant changes in the postcode districts linked to weather station areas over the period in question. Of particular interest in respect of the Inverness area was the transfer of postcodes IV 47–49, 51, 55 and 56 from the station at Tiree to the new station at Waterstein Head in 1997; the replacement of the station at Waterstein Head by that at Lusa in 1998, and, most significantly and recently, the transfer of postcode district IV3 from
  268W
  necessary and the payment process can start without awaiting actual recorded temperatures. Payments are not recalled if a forecast is not confirmed by recorded data.

  The attached tables detail the estimated cost and numbers of potential recipients in each constituency for 97, 98/99.

  I hope this is helpful. Copies of this letter will be placed in the library.

  the station at Loch Glascarnoch to the station at Kinloss in 1999. Unfortunately a printing error resulted in the IV3 postcode being omitted from the current print of the cold weather payment handbook. The relevant district has been informed and an appropriate amendment will be made at the next review.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will issue an instruction to all Benefits Agency staff requiring them to disregard the value of the Winter Fuel Payment when assessing the value of capital in any assessments of entitlement to income-related benefits. [102998]

  Angela Eagle
  Winter Fuel Payments are made under the Social Fund. Income-related benefits legislation provides for all types of Social Fund payments to be fully disregarded in the assessment of a person's capital. This is reflected in guidance to Benefits Agency staff in both the Decision Makers' Guide (DMG) and the Guidance and Procedures manual (GAP).

  If the hon. Member believes that this guidance has not been followed in a particular case, he or the individual concerned should contact the local Benefits Agency office.

  Benefit Disregards
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the levels of capital and income disregards for the benefits for which his Department is responsible [102510]

  Mr. Bayley
  We continue to keep the levels of capital and income disregards in all income-related benefits under review as part of the welfare reform and modernisation programme that the Department is currently undertaking.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he (a) has made and (b) intends to carry out of the contribution that a raising of the levels of capital and income disregards for benefits paid out of public funds would make to the Government's policy of reducing poverty. [102512]

  Mr. Bayley
  We outlined our commitment to looking at ways to better reward savers in the Pensions Green Paper with a view to ensuring that the least well-off pensioners share in the rising national prosperity. We will bring forward our proposals later in this Parliament.

  Invalid Carers Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security What estimates he has made of the earnings of recipient of invalid carers allowance in the last year for which Figures are available.[102781]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Income Distribution
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the change in average income has been since 1997; how the real income after housing costs of(a) the poorest 10 per cent. and (b) the richest 10 per cent. in the UK have changed since 1997; and what was the average income for (i) men and (ii) women in each year since 1997. [102890]

  Mr. Bayley
  The latest available information is published in "Households Below Average Income" (HBAI) and relates to 1997–98 for Great Britain. In that year, mean income Before Housing Costs was £318 per week (in April 1999 prices), £277 After Housing Costs.

  Median net equivalised household income of the bottom 10 per cent. of individuals, After Housing Costs, was £71 per week, and of the top 10 per cent. was £600 per week.

  HBAI assumes that both partners in a couple benefit equally from the household income, and as a result both partners will appear at the same position in the income distribution. On that basis, mean net equivalised household income for men was £301 per week, and for women was £279 per week.

  The Department's statisticians hope to publish the next edition of HBAI, providing information for 1998–99, in the summer of 2000.
  270W
  Notes:

  1. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  2. The HBAI income measure is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say, income that is adjusted to reflect the size and composition of the household).

  3. Figures for the bottom 10 per cent. should be treated with caution, as evidence suggests that those in the bottom decile do not necessarily have the lowest living standards.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been paid out by the Independent Living Fund in each of the last five years; and how much has been awarded to claimants with(a) physical and (b) learning disabilities. [102765]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Funds do not keep records of grants paid to clients as a result of a particular disability. ILF grants are paid on the basis of an individual's care needs. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  The amounts paid out as grants by the independent living funds in the last five years

  £

  Year

  1993 Fund

  Extension Fund

  1994–95

  6,577,784

  100,568,587

  1995–96

  15,820,289

  92,875,374

  1996–97

  25,375,617

  84,001,152

  1997–98

  34,762,568

  76,354,566

  1998–99

  43,030,022

  71,924,318

  Data held by the Independent Living (1993) Fund give a breakdown of clients by primary recorded disability.

  Independent living (1993) Fund—Client load in September 1999

  Severe learning difficulties

  1,481

  27

  Multiple sclerosis

  891

  16

  Cerebral palsy

  767

  14

  Spinal injury

  454

  8

  Brain damage

  360

  7

  Cerebro-vascular

  302

  5

  Muscular dystrophy

  205

  4

  Arthritis

  144

  3

  Epilepsy

  136

  2

  Parksinson's disease

  64

  —

  Spina bifida

  59

  —

  Friedrich's Ataxia

  53

  —

  Mental illness

  51

  —

  Huntington's Chorea

  50

  —

  AIDS

  36

  —

  Cancer

  36

  —

  Dementia

  32

  —

  Motor neurone disease

  31

  —

  Polio

  29

  —

  Heart disease

  23

  —

  Respiratory disease

  23

  —

  Hydrocephalus

  17

  —

  Physical malformation

  20

  —

  Blood disease

  10

  —

  Osteoporosis

  5

  —

  Other

  237

  —

  Note:

  No similar information exists for the Independent Living (Extension) Fund.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are waiting to have their application for a resident's visa processed. [102499]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  The most recent figures we have show that at the end of October, 8,596 applicants were waiting for settlement visa interviews at the 100 busiest Entry Clearance posts overseas. This figure excludes those applicants waiting in Peking where computer problems have delayed the production of statistical data. The figure also excludes applications referred to the Home Office for a decision; and applications under appeal. During the period January to October 1999, the Posts concerned received 1,314,397 applications for settlement and non-settlement visas for the UK.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Records Bureau will come into operation; and if he will make a statement. [103466]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 14 December 1998, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner),Official Report, column 356W, that we would be setting up a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in Merseyside to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997. The function of the Bureau will be to issue certificates to applicants, including people who wish to apply for posts involving working with children and vulnerable adults. On 20 July, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Department announced in a reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), Official Report, column 464W, that he was reviewing the timetable for the delivery of the CRB and that he would inform the House of the results after the recess.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed that Bernard Herdan, the newly appointed Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Passport Agency, will also be in charge of the CRB. He will chair the CRB Management Board and account to the Home Secretary, to Parliament and to stakeholders for the CRB's performance. Some administrative support functions will be provided to the CRB by the United Kingdom Passport Agency, but in general it will operate as an entirely separate business unit and will be publishing its own Business Plan and Annual Report.

  I have reviewed the delivery of the project to establish the CRB within the framework of a Public Private Partnership. A dedicated team has been established in Merseyside to deliver the project. A business prospectus was issued on 8 October and a bidders conference was held on 14 October. I am pleased to report that there has been a substantial amount of interest from potential private sector partners, and bids were received on 19 November and are under evaluation. Shortlisted bidders will be invited to take part in a technical design study next spring and we hope to be in a position to let the contract around the middle of next year. It will then take about six to nine months to install the necessary
  272W
  systems and recruit the staff before the Bureau is ready to receive applications for registration from employers requiring access to the highest level certificates on behalf of their employees.

  My aim is that the CRB should then move on to the next stage and start issuing certificates in July 2001. This is later than our original estimate, but this is a challenging programme and I think it important that the timescale is realistic. Priority will be given to issuing the highest level of certificate, the Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate, for those seeking positions which involve regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons aged under 18. The CRB's services will expand over the subsequent year so that, by July 2002, it should be issuing all three levels of certificate provided for in the legislation.

  In the course of the review, we have decided that it is not necessary to proceed with earlier plans to procure accommodation to house the whole of the CRB's staff. While it remains our intention to accommodate the Bureau's core public sector staff in Merseyside, we think it right to give our private sector partner the flexibility needed to produce the best, most cost-effective solution. The project will continue to be managed from Merseyside.

  Coastal Byelaws
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the transfer of responsibility for the confirmation of coastal byelaws. [103467]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that, with effect from 1 January 2000, responsibility for the confirmation of byelaws under section 76 of the Public Health Act 1961 (in respect of seaside pleasure boats) and under section 185 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (in respect of pleasure boats and vessels let for hire to the public) will be transferred to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency will deal with applications from local authorities for confirmation of these byelaws in England. A Home Office Circular giving further details is being issued to local authorities.

  Communications Interception
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to publish responses to the consultation paper, "Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom". [103468]

  Mr. Straw
  Copies of all responses to the consultation paper, "Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom", have been published today on the Home Office website, where permission to publish was not withheld. A summary of all the responses has also been published, and placed in the Library.

  Police (Hearing Impairment)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Metropolitan police force has made negligence compensation payments in the last two years to police officers who have developed a hearing loss or tinnitus as a result of their work duties. [102876]
  273W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that negligence compensation payments have been paid to police officers who have developed a hearing loss or tinnitus as a result of their work duties.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies the Metropolitan police force has adopted to minimise the level of hearing loss or tinnitus caused by work duties of police officers. [102877]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that the Directorate of Occupational Health provides regular audiometry testing for identified "at risk" groups: motorcyclists, firearms officers, dog handlers and Thames Division. Since 1973, Firearms Officers have been issued with ear protectors when firearms training is undertaken. A Consultant is also employed to advise on measures for protecting hearing.

  Detective Inspector John Redgrave
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis received the papers relating to the case of D. I. John Redgrave and others from the hon. Member for Thurrock; and when the hon. Member will receive an acknowledgement of their receipt. [102999]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the letter from my hon. Friend, with accompanying papers, was received in the Deputy Commissioner's office on 2 December. The Director, Complaints Investigation Bureau, sent an acknowledgement of the correspondence on 14 December.

  Factory Fires
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what toxins were present in the atmosphere as a result of the fire at the Wilton Bradley factory, Long Road, Paignton;[102896]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the emergency services' response to the Wilton Bradley factory fire, Long Road, Paignton, on Friday 10 December; [102891]

  (3) when the last risk inspection was carried out by the Fire and Rescue Service at the Wilton Bradley factory, Long Road, Paignton; and if he will make a statement; [102892]

  (4) what reports he has received about the advice given by the Fire Service on the safety systems which were in place at the Wilton Bradley factory, Long Road, Paignton to minimise the risk of and spread of fire; [102885]

  (5) what are the risks to human health from (a) the inhalation and (b) the ingestion of the chemicals released in the fire at the Wilton Bradley factory, Long Road, Paignton; and if he will make a statement; [102897]

  (6) if he will publish the tactical information plan for the Wilton Bradley factory, Long Road, Paignton; [102893]
  274W
  (7) when the Devon Fire Service Chemdata in respect of the Wilton Bradley factory, Long Road, Paignton, was last updated; and if he will make a statement. [102894]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have received the following information from the Chief Fire Officer, Devon Fire and Rescue Service.

  The premises were built in 1970, and were issued with a Fire Certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 on 18 February 1991. This certificate related to the use of the premises as a cash and carry warehouse.

  Plans submitted by the current occupiers during June 1998, for approval under the Buildings Regulations, were considered for compliance by both the Torbay Council and Devon Fire and Rescue Service. The standards applied are contained in the Building Regulations Approved Document B. The intent of the Regulations is to secure reasonable standards of health and safety for persons in or about the building. There is no requirement for a building put to this use and of this size to be provided with either automatic fire detection or sprinklers. On receipt of a Building Regulations Completion Certificate, in respect of the work covered by the plans, an inspection was to have been carried out with the intent of updating the Fire Certificate.

  On 1 December 1999 the Fire Precautions (Workplace) (Amendments) Regulations 1999 came into force, placing a requirement upon the employer to carry out a risk assessment to minimise the risk of and spread of fire.

  The Devon Fire and Rescue Service is currently carrying out a programme of visits to all certificated premises raising the awareness of the employer regarding these Regulations. These visits are intended to:
  give fire prevention advice;
  gather operational information; and
  enforce fire safety legislation as appropriate.

  The last visit by the fire service to the Wilton Bradley factory, Paignton, was on 25 January 1999. This was a fire safety inspection carried out by operational firefighters from Paignton fire station.

  Devon Fire and Rescue Service received the call to the fire at the Wilton Bradley Factory at 22.58 hours on 9 December 1999. A fire engine was en route to the site at 23.00 hours and in attendance at the fire at 23.04 hours. This was well within the 8–10 minute maximum response time recommended by the minimum standard of fire cover for the area. As a matter of policy the brigade mobilised two fire engines and one supervisory officer immediately. The second fire engine arrived at 23.07 hours and the officer at 23.17 hours. At the height of the incident a total of 17 fire brigade appliances (including specialist vehicles) and 80 firefighters attended. There was a multi-agency response including police, ambulance and environmental health.

  The Tactical Information Plan is a new concept based upon a computer based operational plan recently devised by Devon Fire and Rescue Service in order to ensure that firefighters have appropriate information at the scene of an incident. The system is in the early stages of development and, at the time of the incident, the premises had not been visited.
  275W
  The first air quality monitoring measurements were acquired by Somerset Scientific Services on behalf of Torbay Council at 12 mid-day on 10 December. Air samples for hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen fluoride styrene and ammonia were examined at that time and all were negative in the building with the exception of hydrogen chloride which read two parts per million. The tests were repeated in Long Road at 13.30 hours when all results were negative with the exception of hydrogen chloride which was recorded at less than one part per million.

  In total 47 individual air samples were taken and the only other positive recordings were in respect of hydrogen cyanide at one part per million in Kingsway Drive, Paignton, at the properties closest to the fire. At this location eight tests for hydrogen cyanide were repeated and two registered levels at one part per million, the remainder were negative.

  34 environmental samples were taken of vegetation/ leaves, soil, food and water and remain to be analysed and 58 samples were taken searching for asbestos including bulk asbestos swabs, vegetation and airborne fibre counts. Results of these analyses are awaited but of the 16 airborne fibre counts examined no asbestos fibres were found.

  South and West Devon Health Authority has reported a number of minor symptoms experienced by people who were exposed to the smoke; about 18 people attended the local Accident and Emergency Department, 10 contacted a General Practitioner and about 20 telephoned National Health Service Direct. The symptoms reported included eye and skin irritation and mild breathing problems. There were no reports of serious symptoms directly caused by the smoke.

  Monitoring results did not reveal any significant toxic substances and no long term effects are expected. The low levels of hydrogen chloride that were detected would explain the symptoms described.

  The Public Health Department at South and West Devon Health Authority is carrying out a questionnaire survey in the affected area in order to document the health effects of the incident and to monitor the population for potential long term effects, although these are considered to be unlikely.

  Chemdata is a generic chemical information database widely used throughout the fire service. As such it is not premises specific. Devon Fire and Rescue Service had in place the latest version of the database at the time of the fire. This updated database was loaded onto the Devon Fire and Rescue Service computer system on 23 November 1999.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many factory fire incidents involving chemicals occurred, broken down by fire authority, in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available. [102895]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not readily available and I will reply as soon as possible.

  Drink-related Crime
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of convictions for crimes where alcohol abuse was a factor in each of the last three years. [102553]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available. With the exception of offences which specifically mention alcohol (ie, drunkenness and driving while under the influence of alcohol) it is not possible to define objectively what constitutes a drink-related crime or to state definitely that alcohol abuse led or helped lead to a specific offence.

  Sex Offenders
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government will announce the conclusions of the review of the effectiveness of the register of sex offenders.[102711]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is anticipated that the results of the review of the effectiveness of the register will be available next spring. Following its publication we will be looking at whether, and if so what, changes might be necessary to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in consultation with the police and non-governmental bodies concerned.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures for the monitoring of sex offenders who travel. [102712]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We fully recognise the concerns expressed over the need to keep track of sex offenders who travel abroad or have convictions for sex offences committed abroad and who return to this country. We are at present conducting an evaluation of the operation of the registration requirement in the 1997 Act. Once this review is completed, we will need to consider whether, and if so what, changes are necessary. We intend to do this in full consultation with the police and non-governmental bodies working in this area. Primary legislation will be required for any changes to the Act.

  Property Crime (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has in respect of safeguarding homes in Devon and Cornwall against the rise in property crime forecast by his Department. [102683]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The £250 million Crime Reduction Programme that was launched in July 1998 and the Crime Reduction Strategy that we announced last week will benefit homes in Devon and Cornwall as well as elsewhere in England and Wales.

  An important strand of the programme is the Reducing Burglary Initiative, under which more than £50 million will be used to support anti-burglary projects over three years covering some two million households in 500 areas of England and Wales with high levels of domestic burglary. As well as helping to reduce burglary locally, the initiative will provide practical evidence which will benefit all local crime and disorder reduction partnerships seeking to improve their anti-burglary strategies. Of the 63 first-round strategic development projects already underway, two are based in Devon and Cornwall: one in

  277W
  central Plymouth and the other in Tormohun (Torbay). Three second-round bids have been received so far from Devon and Cornwall and a decision on these bids will be taken in January.

  A further £153 million will be invested over the next three years under the Closed Circuit Television Initiative and some projects will be funded in due course in Devon and Cornwall.

  We have also recently launched the Property Crime Reduction Action Team which we expect to make a real impact on property crime by bringing together partners in central and local government, police, fire service and key players in the insurance and commercial sectors.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cologne Summit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the form, frequency and nature of the additional verifiable quantitative targets to be established for the Luxembourg process, as indicated in section 10 of the Presidency Conclusions of the Cologne Summit.[101021]

  The Prime Minister
  The issue of whether to introduce additional verifiable quantitative targets for the Luxembourg process has been discussed in respect of proposals for the Employment Guidelines for 2000. There are currently no proposals to do so. The Employment Guidelines were adopted by the European Council meeting in Helsinki on 10–11 December.

  Downing Street Dinner
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister if the dinner held at Number 10 Downing Street on 21 October was paid for out of public funds. [102121]

  The Prime Minister
  As under previous Administrations, all costs in relation to hospitality undertaken in an official capacity by the Prime Minister are met from public funds.

  Employee and self-employment jobs in the tourism-related industries by Great Britain, Scotland, Wales and English region 1984 to 1999

  Thousand

  19841

  19871

  19891

  19911

  19942

  19952

  19962

  19972

  19982

  19992

  Great Britain

  1,419

  1,502

  1,679

  1,700

  1,667

  1,741

  1,734

  1,812

  1,786

  1,786

  Scotland

  145

  152

  173

  171

  184

  185

  179

  176

  181

  173

  Wales

  68

  75

  88

  93

  88

  79

  84

  84

  85

  89

  South East

  247

  254

  289

  285

  285

  309

  321

  341

  326

  326

  London

  206

  222

  228

  230

  240

  263

  249

  280

  286

  282

  East Anglia

  49

  54

  61

  61

  61

  63

  69

  64

  70

  74

  South West

  136

  142

  172

  178

  165

  175

  177

  179

  169

  173

  West Midlands

  108

  119

  131

  136

  138

  136

  140

  145

  136

  139

  East Midlands

  79

  94

  102

  110

  107

  106

  109

  112

  115

  113

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  118

  132

  149

  147

  147

  144

  144

  154

  150

  147

  North West

  183

  170

  190

  195

  168

  189

  171

  188

  176

  184

  North

  81

  87

  95

  94

  84

  91

  90

  90

  92

  85

  1Industry definitions based on SIC 80 classifications

  2Industry definitions based on SIC 92 classifications

  Note:

  Revisions to the 1995 and 1996 Annual Employment Survey resulted in an upward step in the employee jobs series from September 1995. Data at this level of detail have not been corrected for this upward step.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people have been employed by the tourism industry in each of the past 20 years(a) in total in the UK and (b) in each region. [101307]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The estimates of the number of employee and self-employment jobs in the tourism-related industries in Great Britain, Scotland, Wales and each region in England in each of the last 20 years for which information is available is presented in the table.

  There is a discontinuity in each data series in 1994 owing to introduction of revised UK Standard Industrial Classifications. From 1994, SIC 92 codes were used to classify industries in employment surveys. Prior to that, SIC 80 codes were used. While generally the same industries were included within the definition for the tourism-related industries under both sets of classifications, there are differences. For instance, under SIC 92, the tourism-related industries include travel agencies and tour operators, while under SIC 80 some activities, such as the operating of fairgrounds, were included.

  Estimates for the number of self-employed are provided by the Labour Force Survey, which bases its annual figures on employment in the spring months (March to May).

  The employee jobs figures presented are taken from the Census of Employment (prior to 1994), the Annual Employment Survey (1995 to 1997) and the Short-term Employment Surveys (1994, 1998, 1999). Prior to 1995, the major employee jobs surveys were not carried out on an annual basis. The annual data taken from the Census of Employment and the Annual Employment Survey are from September each year, while figures presented from the Short-term Employment Surveys are for June each year.

  Union Flag
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what days of the year it is(a) required and (b) permitted for the Union flag to be flown from (i) Government buildings, (ii) headquarters of public bodies, (iii) police stations and (iv) schools. [101708]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: There are currently 20 appointed days each year when it is required, by command of Her Majesty the

  Appointed days

  6 February

  Her Majesty's Accession

  19 February

  Birth of the Duke of York

  1 March

  St. David's Day (in Wales only)

  10 March

  Birthday of The Earl of Wessex

  March (second Monday)

  Commonwealth day

  21 April

  Birthday of Her Majesty the Queen

  23 April

  St. George's Day (in England only)

  9 May

  Europe Day

  2 June

  Coronation Day

  June (date to be notified)

  Official Celebration of Her Majesty's Birthday

  10 June

  Birthday of the Duke of Edinburgh

  4 August

  Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother

  15 August

  Birthday of the Princess Royal

  21 August

  Birthday of the Princess Margaret

  November (second Sunday)

  Remembrance Day

  14 November

  Birthday of the Prince of Wales

  20 November

  Her Majesty's Wedding Day

  30 November

  St. Andrew's Day (in Scotland only)

  also

  The day of the opening of a Session of the Houses of Parliament by Her Majesty

  The day of the prorogation of a Session of the Houses of Parliament by Her Majesty

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish a list of those invited to attend the Millennium Dome on 31 December, other than those described as ordinary members of the public, who have subsequently indicated they will not be attending.[102255]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: The details of those concerned are held on the Dome Opening Celebration's secure database and are subject to data protection legislation. All those concerned would need to be contacted for their agreement to release their details. The costs of doing so, including the opportunity costs of moving NMEC employees on to such a task, are at this stage of the project disproportionate to the outcome, especially when the results would be uncertain in terms of agreements and refusals.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 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. [102333]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has four buildings which are under its direct control and occupied by DCMS staff. These are: 2–4 Cockspur Street; Grove House, 2–6 Orange Street; 6th floor Haymarket House, Oxendon Street; and Queen's Yard, 179a Tottenham Court Road.
  280W
  Queen, that Government buildings fly the Union flag. While there is no formal definition of a Government building for this purpose, it is generally accepted to mean a building owned or used by the Crown and predominately occupied or used by Civil Servants or Her Majesty's armed forces. The headquarters of public bodies, police stations and schools are exempt from these instructions, but the police have chosen to follow the Central Government arrangements.

  The days required are:

  Smoking rooms are provided in accordance with departmental policy, with the exception of the new premises at Tottenham Court Road for the Government Art Collection. At these premises, smoking anywhere within the building is deemed an unacceptable fire hazard and none of the staff currently employed there are smokers.

  First aid rooms are available for pregnant and nursing mothers. Although no rooms are specifically set aside for ethnic minority religious use, the Department is flexible in accommodating such needs.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many submissions he received during his consultation on the future funding of the BBC which were(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to a digital television licence fee, indicating the organisations and individuals in each case. [102409]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Over 2,000 responses to the public consultation were received by the end of November. Of the 543 which commented on the independent review panel's recommendation for a digital licence supplement, (a) 14 were in favour and (b) 529 were opposed to the proposal. I will publish a summary of responses when I announce my decisions on the Davies panel's recommendations in January.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the amount of public funds given to support sporting activities for(a) men and (b) women in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [102192]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Information on the amount of public funds given is not available in the form requested. However, to date Sport has been awarded £1,145 billion from the National Lottery, which has benefited 5,089 capital projects. Additionally, the Sports Councils, through which my Department's funding for sport is channelled, have received £234.3 million grant in aid in the last five years to provide support to the governing bodies of sport and other representative bodies. Funding of around £750,000 is being provided this year to three gender-specific sports: women's netball, rugby and football. All applications for a Lottery award should demonstrate that it would benefit all sections of the community, including young people, ethnic communities, people with disabilities, older people and women.

  Hotel, Catering and Restaurant Trade
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed in the hotel, catering and restaurant trade(a) in each of the last 20 years, (b) on 1 May 1997 and (c) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [102424]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Estimates of the total number of employee and self-employment jobs in the hotel, catering and restaurant trade in Great Britain are available for 1984 onwards and are presented in the table:

  Employee and self-employment jobs in hotels, restaurants and catering Great Britain

  Great Britain

  Thousand

  Number

  1984

  1,154

  1985

  1,188

  1986

  1,201

  1987

  1,194

  1988

  1,268

  1989

  1,348

  1990

  1,391

  1991

  1,366

  1992

  1,355

  1993

  1,319

  1994

  1,323

  1995

  1,386

  1996

  1,419

  1997

  1,452

  1998

  1,443

  1999

  1,425

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Estimates for the number of self-employed are provided by the Labour Force Survey, which bases its annual figures on employment in the spring months (March to May). The employee jobs figures are derived from official employment surveys and are for June each year. The employment surveys are conducted at regular fixed points
  282W
  each year, and therefore information is not available for employment in the hotel, catering and restaurant trade on 1 May 1997.

  The latest available estimate for the annual number of employee and self-employment jobs in the hotel, catering and restaurant trade is for 1999, and is presented in the table.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the Television Licensing Authority regarding the provision whereby sheltered schemes can lose their concession if residents include men between the ages of 60 to 65 years;[102227]

  (2) if he will review the rules on the eligibility of sheltered housing schemes for concessionary television licences to allow schemes which include some residents under pensionable age to qualify for the concession. [102522]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: The Government are considering the Davies report's recommendations on the concessionary scheme in the light of responses to the public consultation, including those of the BBC as Licensing Authority. We intend to announce our conclusions in January.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make transitional arrangements to assist those living in households containing a resident aged over 75 years who buys a television licence which extends into the period when such households no longer have to pay the licence fee. [102621]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government anticipate that the arrangements for free television licences for pensioners aged 75 or over will incorporate provisions for refunds in respect of unexpired licences. We intend to announce shortly full details of how the scheme will operate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Chief Electoral Officer's Report
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for 1998–99. [103367]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I am pleased to announce that the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for the year 1998–99 has today been laid before Parliament. Copies are available in the Library.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what support is available from his Department for adult students from Northern Ireland to attend(a) Ruskin College, Oxford and (b) other institutions; and if he will make a statement; [102681]
  283W
  (2) if adult students from Northern Ireland are eligible for adult education bursaries in higher education; and if he will make a statement. [102680]

  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.

  Military Withdrawal
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from(a) political parties and (b) community groups concerning the withdrawal of troops and the dismantling of military structures; and if he will make a statement. [102622]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been a number of representations recently from both political parties and community groups for the dismantling of military structures in Belfast and in South Armagh and the withdrawal of troops from East Tyrone.

  On 3 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a review is now under way, with the Chief Constable and GOC, which will focus particularly on specific security arrangements, including various installations throughout Northern Ireland, taking account of the prevailing threat. Any changes will of course depend on genuine cessations of violence and continued progress in the political process.

  The first phase of this review will be completed early in the new year. The Secretary of State has invited people who wish to send him their written views to do so by 14 January.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef on the Bone
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the retail ban on beef-on-the-bone will be lifted on 17 December; and if he will make a statement. [103558]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Consultation on the draft Regulations to lift the retail ban on bone-in-beef was completed on Wednesday 8 December and showed strong support for the proposal. A summary of consultation responses has been placed in the Library of the House. The Regulations have been laid before the House today and will come into effect on Friday 17 December.

  The remaining ban on the use for manufacturing of bones from beef deboned in Great Britain will continue to be kept under review. Meanwhile, manufacturers are being reminded of the continuing importance of compliance in the interest of public health and to help maintain consumer confidence in beef products. In addition, caterers are being asked to ensure that information is readily available to consumers about whether bone-in-beef or beef bones have been used in the preparation of food for direct sale.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the projects 284W
  on the risks to agriculture from the release of GMOs funded by his Department and completed in the last six months. [103559]

  Ms Quin
  Three projects on the effects associated with GMOs have been completed in the last six months. These are: an investigation of the interaction between genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMOs) living around sugar beet plants; a study of the chances of the creation of novel viruses from the release of GM virus-tolerant plants; and a desk study of the possible effects associated with the introduction of GM forage grasses and forage legumes. The results of these projects will inform policy on future releases of GMOs.

  Details of all three projects are available from the MAFF Library.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will bring further areas into the badger culling trial recommended by Professor Krebs to address questions about the incidence of tuberculosis in cattle. [103366]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are committed to a wide-ranging research and control strategy to find a science-based solution to TB in cattle. The badger culling trial is an important element of that strategy. I am pleased to announce that the sixth set of trial areas will be located in West Cornwall and that work is progressing on identifying the remaining areas.

  Veterinary Drugs (Merchants)
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Agriculture and Health Ministers have determined the fees to be paid by merchants and saddlers for registration in 2000–01 with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain under the Medicines (Exemptions for Merchants in Veterinary Drugs) Order 1998. [103560]

  Ms Quin
  Yes. The Schedule of Fees for Registration is given in the table.

  £

  Fee

  Application in respect of each premises fee

  Previous

  New

  Agricultural Merchants

  1. For registration under article 5

  243

  197

  2. For retention of registration under article 5

  138

  122

  3. For restoration of registration under article 5

  209

  166

  Saddlers

  1. For registration under article 5

  112

  123

  2. For retention of registration under article 5

  65

  73

  3. For restoration of registration under article 5

  97

  107

  Rural Development
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current level of expenditure under the Rural Development Regulations indicating the amount of funding that is received from the EU. [102783]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The Rural Development Regulation does not apply in relation to Community support until 1 January 2000.
  285W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount of money that will be paid under the Rural Development Regulations in each of the seven years from 2001, indicating the amount from each contributing budget. [102784]

  £million

  Source of funding

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  Total Planned Expenditure

  173

  205

  236

  263

  279

  295

  EU receipts

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  MAFF CSR (subject to Spending Review)

  91

  91

  91

  91

  91

  91

  Modulation receipts

  22

  45

  50

  54

  62

  70

  Exchequer match funding

  22

  45

  50

  54

  62

  70

  Total1

  185

  2232

  241

  249

  265

  281

  1 Deficits in some years can be funded by carrying over surplus modulation receipts in others

  2 Figures may differ due to roundings

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which bodies are responsible for the administration and oversight of the Rural Enterprise Scheme. [102788]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Subject to European Commission approval of the England Rural Development Plan, the Ministry of Agriculture's regional organisation will be responsible for the administration of the Rural Enterprise Scheme. We are proposing that oversight of this Scheme, and the other project-based support schemes under the Rural Development Regulation, will be carried out by the regional partnerships which are drawing up the regional chapters of the Plan.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations were provided with copies of(a) his statement on rural development and (b) the proposals contained within that statement, before he made the statement to the House on 7 December 1999, Official Report, columns 701–12. [102809]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  No organisations were provided with copies of my statement, or of my proposals, before I made my statement to the House on 7 December.

  Ministerial Contacts (France)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates since 1 August on which he(a) met and (b) spoke by telephone with the French Minister of Agriculture. [102805]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I(a) personally met the French Agriculture Minister on 14 September, 2 November, 15 November and 14 December, and (b) spoke to him by telephone directly on a number of occasions. There have also been a large number of contacts between officials acting on our behalf.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what times between 10 pm on 8 December
  286W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Proposed expenditure under the England Rural Development Plan, subject to European Commission approval, and the Government's 2000 Spending Review is as follows:

  and 12.30 pm on 9 December he discussed with the Prime Minister the French Government's decision to maintain their ban on the import of British beef. [102806]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department has spent on Ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98689]

  Mr. Wills
  For information on spend on the Government Car Service, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 1 December 1999, Official Report, columns 255–56W. Additionally, £7,607 was spent in 1997 –98 and £14,597 was spent in 1998–99 on car hire. All Ministerial travel adheres to the terms of the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers".

  Individual Learning Account
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individual learning accounts have been allocated in the current development phase; and how many of them have been redeemed. [102408]

  Mr. Wicks
  By the end of September, 56,917 individual learning accounts had been opened by English TECs/CCTEs in the current development phase. To date, TECs/CCTEs have contributed £2,927,749 to these accounts.

  Nursery Classes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the guidance to local education authorities on pupil-staff ratios in nursery(a) classes and (b) schools; and how many in each category have a ratio above the current recommended level. [102555]
  287W
  Ms Hodge
  I have no plans to change current guidance on pupil-staff ratios in nursery classes and nursery schools in the maintained sector. Data on pupil-staff ratios in these settings are available only as an aggregated value for each local education authority. This information was last collected by my Department in January 1999 and suggests that all local education authorities are operating nursery schools with pupil-staff ratios which are within current recommended levels and that approximately 99 per cent. are operating more favourable ratios. In addition, 49 per cent. of local education authorities are providing nursery classes in maintained primary schools with pupil-staff ratios that are within or better than the recommended level.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the figures for Section 11 funding for (i) Middlesbrough, (ii) Stockton, (iii) Hartlepool and (iv) Redcar and Cleveland local authorities for the last three years. [102640]

  Jacqui Smith
  Funding under the education element of the Home Office's Section 11 Grant ceased on 31 March 1999. A new grant, the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG), for which my Department is responsible, was introduced in its place from 1 April 1999. EMAG was established to raise standards for those ethnic minority pupils particularly at risk of underachieving and to meet the particular needs of pupils for whom English is an Additional Language. For 1999–2000, individual allocations mirrored Section 11 allocations in 1998–99.

  For 2000–01, £162.5 million will be available to local education authorities to improve the attainment of ethnic minority, traveller and refugee pupils, an increase of 7 per cent. on the amount available for the same purposes in 1999–2000. Provisional allocations for the newly merged Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant for 2000–01 were announced in October 1999. The formula used to allocate the ethnic minority achievement element of the Grant protected each authority's total Grant in 1999–2000, while distributing additional funds on the basis of need.

  Details of individual allocations are set out in the table:

  £

  Grant

  Local education authority

  1999–20001

  2000–012

  Middlesbrough

  454,607

  3454,607

  Stockton

  195,418

  195,418

  Hartlepool

  21,221

  23,722

  Redcar and Cleveland

  45,320

  45,320

  1In order to compare allocations for the two years. the adult education element funded through EMAG in 1999–2000 as an interim measure has been deducted from each LEA's provisional allocation for 1999–2000.

  2 Provisional

  3In order to compare allocations for the two years, the Traveller element has been deducted from Middlesbrough's provisional allocation for 2000–01.

  Students
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce an individual student tracking system for measuring students' progress through the qualification system. [102500]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department is currently undertaking technical feasibility studies for the creation of a statistical database to track young people's progress through the education and training system and their qualification achievements from the ages of 14 to 21. If these studies are successful we would expect to start development of the database in the first half of next year.

  Further and Higher Education Funding
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the final costs of further education delivery was accounted for by staffing costs in the most recent year for which information is available. 11024631

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: In 1997–98, 62.5 per cent. of the costs of delivering further education provision by colleges was accounted for by staffing costs.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of further education revenues was raised by user charges in the most recent year for which information is available. [102468]

  Mr. Wicks
  For the 1997–98 academic year, from available college data, 8 per cent. of college revenue came from tuition fees.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportions of higher education revenues were derived from(a) publicly financed student fees, (b) privately financed student fees, (c) block grant HEFCE funding, (d) contract funding, (e) selective research grant funding, (f) charitable funds and (g) other sources of finance, in the most recent year for which information is available. [102467]

  Mr. Wicks
  The following table shows the available figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) for total income to UK higher education institutions in 1997–98. The HESA figures do not separately identify publicly and privately financed fees. However, figures from the funding letter issued to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) by the Secretary of State on 23 November show estimated tuition fee income to English institutions in respect of home and other EU domiciled full-time students in 1999–2000 as £243 million through private contributions and £561 million from public sources.

  Income of higher education institutions in the UK 1997–98

  Category of income

  £ million

  Percentage

  Academic fees1

  2,485

  21

  Block grant HEFCE funding2

  4,508

  39

  289W

  Income of higher education institutions in the UK 1997–98

  Category of income

  £million

  Percentage

  Contract funding3

  1,134

  10

  Selective research grant4

  555

  5

  Charitable funds

  399

  3

  Other sources of finance5

  2,536

  22

  Total income

  11,617

  100

  1Includes full-time HE course fees and part-time credit bearing HE course fees.

  2Includes recurrent, capital and special initiative HE grants and some research funding.

  3Includes contracts from central and local government, UK industry and commerce, and EU and other overseas sources.

  4Includes grants from OST Research Councils and research training support grants.

  5Includes Other Operating Income, Endowment Income and Interest Receivable.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total value was of student loans paid in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [102879]

  Mr. Wicks
  In the 1996–97 academic year, the total value of student loans paid was £877.2 million; in 1997–98 academic year £941 million; and in 1998–99 academic year £1,233 million.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the resource cost of student loans in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [102884]

  Mr. Wicks
  The resource cost for student loans was £369 million in 1997–98 and an estimated £440 million in 1998–99.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if public Further Education Colleges have access to the New Opportunities Fund. [102469]

  Mr. Wicks
  Further Education Colleges can apply to the New Opportunities Fund's existing programmes, usually in partnership with other organisations.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what safeguards he will introduce to damp any changes in the funding of Further Education Colleges consequent on the transition from the FEFC to the Learning and Skills Council. [102471]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government recognise the importance, not only to colleges, but to all providers of education and training, of stable funding arrangements, particularly during the transition to the Learning and Skills Council. Transition issues will be addressed in the post-16 consultation document on funding, which will be published shortly inviting partners' views on this issue.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those further education colleges which have received accredited college status; and what further arrangements will apply for the maintenance of this status and its extension to other colleges. [102470]
  290W
  Mr. Wicks
  The following colleges have received accredited status:

  Knowsley Community College

  Blackpool and the Fylde College

  Havering College of Further and Higher Education

  Greenhead Sixth Form College

  Bishop Burton College

  John Leggott Sixth Form College

  St. Charles Catholic Sixth Form College

  South Cheshire College

  Stephenson College

  Strode College

  Trowbridge College

  Worthing Sixth Form College.

  The introduction of accredited status has enabled the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) to recognise all-round competence in college performance. The criteria for accreditation are demanding, and colleges that fulfil them must demonstrate continuing commitment to the achievement of high standards across the range of their activity. The FEFC national accreditation panel will continue to meet to consider further applications from colleges in the period until April 2001. There will be consultations early next year on post-16 quality assurance arrangements after April 2001.

  Truancy (Newcastle)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of reports of parents of children who persistently play truant from Firfield School, Newcastle, being persuaded to sign documents saying that the children are being educated at home when home education is not being provided. [102981]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are aware of the reports of the alleged action taken by Firfield Community School concerning persistent truants. Officials are investigating these matters and I will write to the hon. Member once I have examined their findings.

  Exclusions
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each local education authority in the North West Region,(a) the average number of pupils excluded from school and the percentage of pupils this figure represents and (b) the number of full-time equivalent education welfare officers employed by each local education authority in each of the past five years. [102882]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information available is shown in the tables.

  Information on the number of education welfare officers employed by local education authorities is not held centrally.
  291W

  Number and percentage of permanent exclusions in maintained primary, secondary and special schools by Local Education Authority area in the North West Government Office Region: England 1995–96 to 1998–99 Position as at January of each academic year 1995–96

  1995–96

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special1

  Total

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  North West

  225

  0.04

  1,243

  0.37

  62

  0.54

  1,530

  0.17

  Cheshire3

  38

  0.04

  155

  0.24

  14

  0.77

  207

  0.13

  Halton4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Warrington 4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Cheshire4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Cumbria

  15

  0.03

  91

  0.28

  0

  0.00

  106

  0.14

  Bolton

  7

  0.02

  80

  0.46

  0

  0.00

  87

  0.19

  Bury

  11

  0.06

  65

  0.60

  1

  0.36

  77

  0.26

  Manchester

  34

  0.07

  173

  0.79

  9

  0.60

  216

  0.31

  Oldham

  8

  0.03

  64

  0.38

  4

  0.71

  76

  0.18

  Rochdale

  6

  0.03

  37

  0.28

  4

  0.80

  47

  0.13

  Salford

  21

  0.09

  79

  0.66

  3

  0.71

  103

  0.28

  Stockport

  8

  0.03

  58

  0.37

  4

  0.55

  70

  0.16

  Tameside

  9

  0.04

  59

  0.42

  0

  0.00

  68

  0.18

  Trafford

  8

  0.04

  25

  0.19

  1

  0.24

  34

  0.10

  Wigan

  15

  0.05

  54

  0.27

  4

  0.43

  73

  0.14

  Lancashire3

  45

  0.03

  303

  0.35

  18

  0.57

  366

  0.16

  Blackburn with Darwen4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Blackpool4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Lancashire4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Position as at January of each academic year

  1996–97

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special1

  Total

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  North West

  188

  0.03

  1,268

  0.37

  77

  0.66

  1,533

  0.17

  Cheshire3

  29

  0.03

  144

  0.22

  14

  0.78

  187

  0.12

  Halton4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Warrington4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Cheshire4

  5—>

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Cumbria

  9

  0.02

  99

  0.31

  1

  0.36

  109

  0.14

  Bolton

  17

  0.06

  80

  0.45

  3

  0.58

  100

  0.21

  Bury

  9

  0.05

  57

  0.51

  2

  0.80

  68

  0.23

  Manchester

  26

  0.06

  151

  0.68

  14

  0.96

  191

  0.27

  Oldham

  7

  0.03

  59

  0.35

  1

  0.19

  67

  0.16

  Rochdale

  5

  0.02

  42

  0.32

  1

  0.19

  48

  0.13

  Salford

  9

  0.04

  92

  0.76

  1

  0.17

  102

  0.28

  Stockport

  7

  0.03

  57

  0.36

  7

  1.00

  71

  0.16

  Tameside

  10

  0.04

  52

  0.37

  0

  0.00

  62

  0.16

  Trafford

  10

  0.05

  24

  0.18

  0

  0.00

  34

  0.10

  Wigan

  8

  0.03

  58

  0.29

  11

  1.14

  77

  0.15

  Lancashire4

  42

  0.03

  353

  0.40

  22

  0.72

  417

  0.18

  Blackburn with Darwen4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Blackpool4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Lancashire4

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Position as at January of each academic year

  1997–98

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special1

  Total

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  North West

  207

  0.04

  1,182

  0.34

  68

  0.59

  1,457

  0.16

  Cheshire3

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Halton4

  2

  0.02

  21

  0.24

  0

  0.00

  23

  0.11

  Warrington4

  3

  0.02

  23

  0.18

  6

  1.65

  32

  0.10

  Cheshire4

  23

  0.04

  81

  0.18

  8

  0.73

  112

  0.10

  292W 293W

  Position as at January of each academic year

  1997–98

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special1

  Total

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage2

  Cumbria

  8

  0.02

  92

  0.28

  0

  0.00

  100

  0.13

  Bolton

  10

  0.04

  73

  0.40

  3

  0.59

  86

  0.18

  Bury

  3

  0.02

  49

  0.44

  0

  0.00

  52

  0.18

  Manchester

  45

  0.10

  146

  0.65

  7

  0.48

  198

  0.28

  Oldham

  9

  0.04

  60

  0.36

  2

  0.38

  71

  0.17

  Rochdale

  3

  0.01

  23

  0.17

  3

  0.57

  29

  0.08

  Salford

  10

  0.04

  82

  0.68

  1

  0.17

  93

  0.26

  Stockport

  11

  0.04

  54

  0.34

  1

  0.15

  66

  0.15

  Tameside

  10

  0.04

  62

  0.43

  1

  0.22

  73

  0.19

  Trafford

  3

  0.01

  30

  0.20

  0

  0.00

  33

  0.09

  Wigan

  14

  0.05

  61

  0.30

  11

  1.15

  86

  0.17

  Lancashire3

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Blackburn with Darwen4

  6

  0.04

  49

  0.51

  7

  1.37

  62

  0.24

  Blackpool4

  4

  0.03

  36

  0.52

  0

  0.00

  40

  0.20

  Lancashire4

  43

  0.04

  240

  0.33

  18

  0.80

  301

  0.17

  1Includes maintained and non maintained special schools

  2 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of full and part-time pupils of all ages in primary, secondary and special schools, excluding dually registered pupils in special schools in January of each year

  3Local Education Authority areas prior to 1 April 1998 before Local Government Reorganisation

  4New Local Education Authority areas from 1 April 1998 after Local Government Reorganisation

  5Not applicable

  Student Support
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the support that will be available to students in England and Wales in the academic year 2000–01. [103368]

  Mr. Wicks
  The total level of support available to students in 2000–01 will be 21/2 per cent. higher than for 1999–2000, in line with forecast price increases. I am today placing a memorandum in the Library giving details of the new loan, grant and fee rates for 2000–01. These rates will be incorporated in the Education (Student Support) Regulations, which cover support for eligible students under the current arrangements, and in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations and Education (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations, which cover students who are still eligible for support under the previous arrangements. These Regulations will all be laid before Parliament in due course.

  Job Creation (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for publishing the White Paper on the instrument adopted at the 86 session of the International Labour Conference concerning general conditions to stimulate job creation in small and medium-sized enterprises. [103370]

  Ms Jowell
  I have today published a White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

TREASURY

  Economic Imbalances (Regions)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to address regional economic imbalances in the United Kingdom. [101780]
  294W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are well aware of the importance of balanced economic growth across all the regions of the UK. We are working to diminish regional imbalances and so enhance the UK's economic performance, release economic potential and ensure that all our people share in steadily rising prosperity.

  Taxation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional tax that will be paid between 1997 and 2001 as a result of his Budget measures since 1997. [101781]

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the net addition is to the amount of tax that will be paid in the next financial year as a result of his Budget measures since 1997. [101784]

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the(a) total increase in tax due as a result of increases in taxes and (b) reduction in tax due as a result of reductions in taxes, aggregated over the measures in his three Budgets to date.[101790]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of the Budget measures can be found in tables 2.2, 1.3 and 1.3 of the July 1997, March 1998 and March 1999 Budget Reports. As a result of these Budgets, the direct tax rate on an average family with children will fall below 20 per cent. for the first time since 1979, and be at its lowest level since 1972.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent appraisals he has commissioned into changes in the system of taxation. [101786]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to the thorough review of all tax measures.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce Public Service Agreements with regional performance targets. [101782]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The new Public Service Agreements will be drawn up as part of next year's spending review, and will include some cross-departmental targets. The regional and local impact of Government programmes will be carefully considered in the course of the review.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the recently announced reduced rate of tax on savings will have on pensioner incomes in the south-west; and if he will make a statement. [101783]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Approximately 170,000 pensioners in the South West will benefit, by an average of about £70 a year, from the extension of the 10p starting rate of tax to savings income.

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the reduced rate of tax on savings announced in the Pre-Budget report on pensioner incomes in Yorkshire and the Humber. [101785]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Approximately 120,000 pensioners in Yorkshire and the Humber will benefit, by an average of about £70 a year, from the extension of the 10p starting rate of tax to savings income.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of the reduction in tax on savings on pensioner incomes in London. [101795]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Approximately 130,000 pensioners in London will benefit, by an average of about £60 a year, from the extension of the 10p starting rate of tax to savings income.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his economic policies on pensioner poverty. [101799]

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Government's economic policies on relieving pensioner poverty. [101801]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have introduced a series of measures to combat pensioner poverty:

  The Minimum Income Guarantee for the poorest pensioners, which was introduced in April 1999, will be uprated by earnings over time and as resources allow. The Government have already pledged to uprate the Minimum Income Guarantee by earnings every year until the end of this Parliament. This will benefit the 1.6 million MIG recipients. The effect of earnings uprating is that, from April 2000, for a younger single pensioner, the MIG will be almost £500 per year higher than it was in April 1997. For a pensioner couple, the MIG will be £800 higher.
  296W
  The Winter Allowance—introduced by this Government in 1998 and increased to £100 for every pensioner household from winter 1999—is a major part of the Government's strategy to combat fuel poverty, along with the cut in the rate of VAT on fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.

  Free TV licences for pensioners aged 75 and over will be introduced from autumn 2000. This measure is an important income boost for some of the poorest pensioner households.

  On taxation, this Government have introduced the 10p and 22p tax bands, increased personal allowances for pensioners and ensured that the lop rate applies to savings income. These changes benefit pensioners particularly and mean that two thirds of pensioners now pay no income tax at all.

  Taken together, the average pensioner household will be £300 per year better off as a result of these measures. In addition, the Government's success in delivering low inflation is particularly important for pensioners who may be relying on savings for their income.

  Give-as-you-earn Scheme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to modify the regulations governing the give-as-you-earn scheme. [101788]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Changes to the legislation giving tax relief for charitable donations through the Payroll Giving scheme will be brought forward in next year's Finance Bill and by amendment of The Charitable Deductions (Approved Schemes) Regulations 1986.

  The changes, which were announced in the Pre-Budget Report, will: remove the ceiling on the annual amount which may be donated under the Payroll Giving scheme; provide a time-limited 10 per cent. supplement on all Payroll Giving donations for three years from 6 April 2000. and tighten the rules for the time within which Payroll Giving agencies must distribute donations to the charities nominated by donors.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made towards meeting his economic tests for UK membership of the euro. [101789]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The assessment of the five economic tests published by the Treasury in October 1997 concluded that we need a period of stability and settled convergence before membership of the single currency can be considered.

  Employment
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of his macroeconomic policies on levels of employment and unemployment in the north-west region. [101791]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the North West region, as in the rest of the UK, we have created a sound and credible platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of high and stable levels of growth
  297W
  and employment. Since the election, employment in the North West has risen by 71,000 and unemployment has fallen by 34,000, both broadly in line with UK trends.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his assessment is of the impact of his macroeconomic policies on levels of employment and unemployment in Yorkshire and the Humber region. [101804]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In Yorkshire and Humberside, as in the rest of the UK, we have created a sound and credible platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the election, employment in Yorkshire and Humberside has risen by 88,000, and unemployment has fallen by 44,000, both broadly in line with UK trends.

  Income Tax (Personal Allowances)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on personal allowances; and if he will make a statement. [101792]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Every individual has their own income tax personal allowance. In his pre-Budget report on 9 November this year, the Chancellor announced that the personal allowance for people aged under 65 would be increased to £4,385 in 2000–01, in line with indexation. The alignment of the income tax personal allowance and the starting point for employers' NICs means that the level of both now needs to be announced in the Autumn. The Government keep all income tax allowances under review, and any other changes will be announced in the Budget in the usual way.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the north-west have used the working families tax credit response line to establish that they are eligible for the working families tax credit. [101793]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The response line for the Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit had handled 780,000 inquiries nationally up to 30 November. A breakdown by Government Office Region is not readily available. A breakdown by TV region is given in the table.

  Television region

  Number of inquiries

  Grampian

  14,000

  Scottish

  44,000

  Border

  7,000

  Tyne

  35,000

  Yorkshire

  68,000

  Granada

  89,000

  Central

  120,000

  Anglia

  42,000

  HTV

  51,000

  Westcountry

  21,000

  Meridian

  53,000

  Carlton

  107,000

  Ulster

  18,000

  Not known

  111,000

  Total

  780,000

  298W
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people in Harlow who will be eligible for the working families tax credit. [101787]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Based on known Family Credit figures for Harlow, and expected eligibility nationally for Working Families Tax Credit, the estimated numbers of families which may be eligible for Working Families Tax Credit on this basis in Harlow is 1,900.

  Regulation
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the number of new regulations on business made by his Department since May 1997 and (b) the number repealed. [101794]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government always take account of the impact of regulation on business. Our policies are helping to ensure sustainable economic growth which benefits all members of society.

  Currency Speculation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received recently concerning the taxation of international currency speculation; and if he will make a statement. [101796]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since the beginning of the year, the Treasury has received 19 letters and 603 postcards from members of the public and 42 letters from hon. Members about the proposal to introduce a tax on currency speculation.

  The Government believe the idea of a tax on currency speculation is, in principle, interesting, but has a number of practical drawbacks. It would be almost impossible to achieve global coverage, and there would be huge scope for avoidance.

  Professional Football Clubs (Taxation)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a tax redistribution arrangement based on turnover for professional football clubs. [101797]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The football authorities, which are independent of Government, are best placed to make decisions on the development of football, including the distribution of income within the game. The tax system is not an appropriate mechanism for redistributing funds between football clubs.

  Energy-saving Materials (VAT)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress he has made with his discussions with the EU on lowering VAT on all energy-saving materials. [101798]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I wrote to the Commission in September 1998 to suggest changes to current Community law to allow a reduced rate to apply to a wider range of energy saving materials, particularly those purchased for DIY use.
  299W
  The Commission replied at the beginning of December last year, saying that there is currently no provision which would allow for this reduced rate. They raised the possibility of future Commission proposals relating to Annexe H of the EC Sixth Directive, which allows for reduced rates, and maintain that these proposals would provide the right context in which to tackle the energy saving materials question. We believe that the Commission may put forward these proposals next year and, when they arrive, we will consider again the case for a reduced rate for energy saving materials.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to assist the implementation of the Government's anti-drugs misuse strategy. [101800]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Comprehensive Spending Review backed the Strategy set out in "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" with £217 million of new money over the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. This includes funding for the Drug Treatment and Testing Orders, which, subject to successful evaluation, will roll out nationally from next year. In addition, my predecessor agreed a framework for the new Confiscated Assets Fund, which will ensure that the assets seized from drugs barons are deployed effectively in support of the Strategy.

  Further, HM Customs and Excise, who are accountable to the Chancellor, play a key operational role in delivery against the Strategy's objective of reducing the availability of drugs in the UK.

  EU Tax Competition
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the damage to the British economy of unfair tax competition within the European Union. [101802]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Unfair tax competition in the form of harmful and discriminatory tax practices can distort competition and artificially attract investment and jobs away from member states, such as the UK, which have more neutral tax systems. Unfair tax practices of others prevent British business from operating on a more level playing field.

  Monetary Policy Framework
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the new monetary policy framework he introduced in May 1997. [101803]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As set out in the Pre-Budget Report, and in a Treasury paper, "The New Monetary Policy Framework", the Government believe that the new monetary policy framework has had several beneficial effects on the UK economy. Since its introduction, inflation has been low, stable and close to target, with survey and financial market data suggesting that price stability is expected to be maintained. This has 300W
  contributed to overall economic stability, steady growth, and rising employment.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 1999,Official Report, column 289W, on business rates, what his estimate is of the total amount to be collected in rates in England in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and what multiplier for inflation he used to calculate the real-terms difference between the two figures. [102813]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on 9 December 1999, Official Report, columns 604 06W.

  The calculation of the national rate multiplier (or poundage) is set out in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which specifies the retail prices index for the preceding September. The multiplier for 2000–01 allows for 1.1 per cent. inflation, based on September 1999 RPI.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments.[100152]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]: The information requested would be available only at a disproportionate cost.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the indicators listed in Opportunity for All are being used for judging the achievement of the Government's aim to(a) halve child poverty within 10 years and (b) eliminate child poverty within 20 years. [102997]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 486W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the letter sent to him on 27 April by the right hon. Member for Wells about the European budget rebate, about which reminders were sent on 2 July, 21 July, 9 September, 8 October and 8 December.[102984]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The former Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 4 October 1999.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many items of data were inputed on to national insurance records held on the N1RS2 computer system in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date. [102795]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Small amounts of data were inputed to National Insurance records held on NIRS2 from 28 January to 18 June 1998. From 13 July 1998, input of data increased incrementally as additional parts of the NIRS2 system were implemented.

  I regret that the full and complete information requested for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is not available.

  The largest single source of data for inputting to records held on NIRS2 is the annual National Insurance update received from employers. The vast majority of this data is inputed to records during the tax year following the year it is collected. Inputting to NIRS2 started at the end of August 1998 and the following volumes of data have been inputted so far: for the 1997–98 tax year, 45.1 million items; for the 1998–99 tax year, 46.4 million items.

  The main daily inputs to records held on NIRS2 in terms of volume have been estimated from samples taken in November 1999 and December 1999. The average is:

  Per day

  External inputs

  214,000

  Transactions processed

  1,964,000

  On-line Inputs

  251,300

  Update of contribution information from employers

  199,000

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what motor mileage allowance rates his Department offers to(a) ministers and (b) civil servants using their own vehicles for official business; and what has been the cost of each in each of the last five years; [98688]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years; [98687]

  (3) how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98686]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  For information on civil servants' transport costs, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 255–56W. Travel undertaken by civil servants (including use of cars) complies with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.

  The Treasury always provides ministerial vehicles for official purposes. However, if Ministers prefer to use their own vehicles for official business, they will be able to claim mileage allowance in the same circumstances and on the same terms as civil servants in the Minister's Department.
  302W
  The standard and public transport motor mileage rates the Department offers to civil servants is:

  i. Standard rate of Mileage Allowance

  Paid for journeys where public transport is not reasonably practicable and the claimant holds a fully comprehensive insurance policy.

  Pence

  Up to 1500cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000cc

  First 5,000 miles at

  35.7

  40

  43

  Over 5,000 miles at

  17

  21

  27

  ii. Public Transport Rate of Mileage Allowance

  Paid in other circumstances

  Rate per mile 22.36p

  Cost of each of the last five years:

  £

  1994–951

  21,000

  1995–961

  12,000

  1996–971

  7,000

  1997–98

  6,000

  1998–99

  11,000

  1Includes the cost of car hire

  Ministerial transport is provided by the Government Car Service (GCS). For information on spend on the Government Car Service, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to her by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999, Official Report,columns 255–56W.

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total work force in his Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department. [102726]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Current records show that about 12.7 per cent. of staff in the Treasury, 6.8 per cent. of staff in Customs and 6.3 per cent. of staff in Inland Revenue have self-declared themselves as of ethnic minority origin.

  Each Department has a variety of measures in place to ensure equal treatment for people of ethnic minority origin, and to ensure that they meet their legal obligations to protect people of ethnic minority from discrimination in the field of employment.

  EU Structural Funds (Wales)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total amount of PES cover required over the period of nine years from 2000 in respect of the Objective 1 funding available for Wales over that period. [102969]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  West Wales and the Valleys has been allocated a total of 1,788 million euros under Objective 1.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Employees (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the total work force in his Department is of ethnic minority origin; and what steps he is taking to encourage the employment of people from the ethnic minorities in his Department.[102730]

  Mr. Lock
  As at 30 September 1999, 9.3 per cent. of staff in my Department (including Associated Offices, Court Service and Public Trust Office), who had completed a questionnaire, were of an ethnic minority origin. If all the staff who did not make a declaration were white, the figure would be 8.9 per cent.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office set out in her reply the corporate action being taken to encourage the employment of people from ethnic minorities. In this Department we provide sponsorship for undergraduates of ethnic minority origin each year under the Windsor Fellowship scheme. We also provide sponsorship and mentors annually for the National Mentoring Consortium, which brings professionals together with students of African, Caribbean and Asian origin to offer expertise, experience and support, as well as contributing to the Department's efforts to attract high calibre staff of ethnic minority origin. An officer has recently been appointed to develop interchange, outreach and recruitment; to take forward key aspects of the Modernising Government agenda; and generally increase the Department's profile at recruitment fairs and among potential ethnic minority recruitees.

  We have recently appointed an Equality and Diversity Adviser to provide guidance on all aspects of the application of equal opportunities across the Department and its business. Furthermore, in response to the Report into the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, we are conducting a wide-ranging audit of all our policies and procedures, including recruitment. The Equality Audit will be making its recommendations in January.

WALES

  Devolution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans Her Majesty's Government have for further devolution of power to Wales. [101965]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  None. Our aim is to make sure that the settlement we have under the Government of Wales Act 1998 operates smoothly and for the good of the people of Wales.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meeting he has held in the last three months with Ministers from the Treasury to discuss Objective 1 match funding for Wales.[102168]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have had a number of meetings and discussions with Treasury colleagues when we have discussed Objective 1 funding.
  304W
  We have also arranged for officials at the Treasury to work with officials from my Department, and the National Assembly, to look at the issues of Objective 1 funding as preparation for the next Spending Review, which is due to get under way in the new year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to which countries he has paid official visits since 1 July. [102869]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In my capacity as Secretary of State for Wales, I have made one official visit abroad, to Belgium.

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [102040]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has a staff of 37 and none are registered as disabled.

  However, my Department has an Equal Opportunities policy that all eligible people should have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the basis of their ability, qualifications and suitability for work. This means that no job applicant or employee will receive less favourable treatment on the grounds of disability.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [102365]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Notes of meetings are taken and kept in Departmental records.

  Theatres (Funding)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning Arts Council of Wales funding for Gwent Theatre. [100205]

  Mr. Hanson
  We have received a number of representations. I have written to National Assembly Secretary, Tom Middlehurst, to pass on to him the concerns raised.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss the future funding of Gwent Theatre, Theatre Powys and Theatre Clwyd. [100204]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State meets the First Secretary on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues; and they have discussed this issue in detail. Following the Adjournment Debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) further discussions have been held with the relevant Assembly Secretary.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [102335]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is one small building under my Department's control which accommodates 37 staff. There is insufficient accommodation to set aside dedicated rooms for any of these uses. Smoking is restricted to one room by agreement with the non-smokers who must also use it.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) non-departmental public bodies and (b) task forces in Wales (i) on 1 May 1997, (ii) on 1 May 1998 and (iii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [102487]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The number of non-departmental public bodies was 45 at 1 May 1997, 42 at 1 May 1998, and 37 at 30 June 1999. From 1 July 1999, responsibility for those 37 non-departmental public bodies transferred to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Information is not held centrally on the number of task forces in Wales, but one new task force was established in the summer of 1997, and a further task force was established in the summer of 1998. Existing task forces became the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales from 1 July 1999.

HEALTH

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that local authorities abide by the requirements of the Competition Act 1998 as it affects their purchasing role in relation to private nursing and residential homes. [99051]

  Mr. Hutton
  Until there is a body of case law, it is not clear whether, or to what extent, the Competition Act applies to local authorities.

  In the White Paper "Modernising Social Services", we made clear that decisions about the provision of care services should be based entirely on judgments about best value and optimum outcomes for individual users. We have a number of measures in place to ensure that the commissioning of services is undertaken in this way. These include best value service reviews and joint reviews by the Audit Commission and the Department's social services inspectorate.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of sufferers of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis live in areas where the relevant health authority will not pay for Beta-Interferon for them. [99993]
  306W
  Ms Stuart
  Information about health authorities' policies on the treatment of multiple sclerosis is not available centrally. Any such policies should provide for individual cases to be considered on their merits in the light of the evidence available on different forms of treatment.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he is using for selection of the pilot areas for the NHS Phone and Go dental access areas; and if Northamptonshire Health Authority meets them. [101489]

  Mr. Hutton
  The key criterion for the selection of Phone and Go dental access centres is that there must be a demonstrated problem of access to National Health Service dentistry in the area. This is assessed from several sources of availability information, including health authority reports, statistical indicators and knowledge of the individual health authority's dental needs and health. The schemes must also offer good value for money, provide a full range of general dental services and have both regional office support and health authority commitment and capability to deliver. Northamptonshire was middle ranking in terms of reported dental availability problems.

  Haemophiliacs (Hepatitis C)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will compensate those haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through contaminated blood products; and if he will make a statement. [102118]

  Mr. Denham
  It remains our policy that compensation or other financial help to patients is given only when the National Health Service has been at fault. We do not believe we should make an exception to that general rule in the case of people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C.

  Heroin Addicts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of heroin addicts in Great Britain received rehabilitation treatment in each of the past five years; and what estimate he has made of the numbers who will receive rehabilitation in the next five years. [101977]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the number of heroin addicts in Great Britain is no longer collected centrally. Data for the last five years for which data were collected (1992–96) are in Table 1.

  The regional drug misuse databases record drug users presenting to treatment agencies in Great Britain, in six-monthly periods. Table 2 shows the number of those users with heroin as their main drug of misuse for the period 30 September 1993 to 30 September 1998.

  A key performance target set in the first annual report and national plan of the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator is to
  "increase the participation of problem drug misusers, including prisoners, in drug treatment programmes which have a positive impact on health and crime by 100 per cent. by 2008; and by 66 per cent. by 2005".
  307W
  The dataset collected by regional drug misuse databases is currently being reviewed to determine an appropriate baseline for this target.

  Table 1: Addicts notified to Home Office during the years 1992 to 1996–United Kingdom

  Year

  Number of notified addicts

  1992

  16,964

  1993

  18,919

  1994

  22,313

  1995

  24,530

  1996

  30,573

  Source

  Statistical Bulletin—"Statistics of Drug Addicts Notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1996"

  Table 2: Users starting agency episodes in Great Britain with heroin as their main drug of misuse, in the six-month periods ending 30 September 1993 to 30 September 1998—Great Britain

  Six-month period ending

  Number of users

  September 1993

  8,643

  March 1994

  9,746

  September 1994

  11,191

  March 1995

  12,282

  September 1995

  13,400

  March 1996

  14,488

  September 1996

  16,621

  March 1997

  18,285

  September 1997

  16,981

  March 1998

  16,390

  September 1998

  18,994

  Source

  Statistical Bulletin—"Statistics from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for the six months ending September 1998" and earlier bulletins.

  Disablement Services
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning a national service framework for disablement services. [102344]

  Mr. Denham
  The charity consortium emPOWER have, over an extended period, called for the establishment of a national service framework (NSF) for disablement services. A rolling programme of NSFs, taking forward established frameworks on cancer and paediatric intensive care and developing frameworks for coronary heart disease and mental health, was launched in April 1998. The next two NSFs will be for older people (2000), and diabetes (2001).

  Cervical Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the application of the HPV test in cervical cancer screening. [101970]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: An outline proposal on pilot studies using human papilloma virus testing as triage for mild and borderline smears, as recommended in the report of the National
  308W
  Health Service Health Technology Assessment published on 30 September 1999, was discussed at the National Screening Committee's meeting in Belfast on 8 December 1999. The National Screening Committee will advise Ministers in light of these discussions. A statement will be made once we have had time to assess this advice.

  NHS Direct
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) of the people using NHS Direct, since it began, in Colne Valley constituency or other similar local areas for which figures are kept, how many(a) were referred to hospital, (b) were referred to their GP and (c) received other advice; [102233]

  (2) how many people in Colne Valley constituency, South Kirklees Primary Care Group area or other similar locality for which records are kept have used NHS Direct since it began. [102234]

  Ms Stuart
  Between April and October this year, NHS Direct West Yorkshire handled over 65,000 calls. The current systems are unable to report information at constituency, primary care group or health authority level, except for calls received via the general practitioner co-operative.

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of NHS Direct on other local health services in the Colne Valley constituency, South Kirklees Primary Care Group area or other similar local areas. [102232]

  Ms Stuart
  The Medical Research Unit of the University of Sheffield is undertaking an independent evaluation of NHS Direct. This evaluation will include a study of the outcomes from calls to NHS Direct. We expect the University of Sheffield's full and final report to be published early next year.

  Abortion
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will draw up guidelines to ensure that all general practitioners with a conscientious objection to abortion are required to make such objection known within their publicity and advertising materials; [101931]

  (2) if he will issue guidelines to all general practitioners explaining that if they are unwilling (a) to advise on and (b) refer women for abortions they should help them make an appointment with another general practitioner who is willing to refer them to a hospital or agency for NHS treatment. [101932]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 December 1999]: In 1991 the General Medical Services Council of the British Medical Association issued guidance to general practitioners through local medical committees, reminding them of their obligations under their terms of service. That guidance remains extant and GPs who have a conscientious objection to abortion should refer the patient to another doctor as soon as possible. GPs who fail to do this could be alleged to be in breach of their terms of service.
  309W
  Earlier this year regional directors were asked to ensure that primary care groups have arrangements in place so that women considering an abortion are able to have easy access to a GP who can make a referral where appropriate.

  A doctor is not required to make known on a practice leaflet a conscientious objection to abortion or any other treatment.

  Physiotherapists
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physiotherapists have been employed by the NHS through agencies in the last five years; and what steps he has taken to reduce expenditure in this area. [102692]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  High-security Hospitals (Staff Vacancies)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are currently in high-security hospitals for(a) nurses, (b) nursing assistants,(c) occupational therapists, (d) forensic psychologists and (e) psychiatrists; and what the figures were in May. [102697]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what capacity the immediate former chief executive of Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust is currently employed; where he is located; and what requirements he is presently being asked to meet. [102249]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: Following the resignation of the former chief executive of Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust it was agreed that he would continue to be employed by the NHS for a further six months, although not in a chief executive's role, and not at Eastbourne.

  The former chief executive is therefore in discussion with the chief executive at Mid Kent Healthcare NHS Trust in Maidstone about a special project for up to six months.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress is being made with respect to the building of a new breast cancer unit at Nottingham City Hospital; and if he will make a statement; [102226]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Trent Regional Health Authority about the proposed new breast cancer unit at Nottingham City Hospital. [102225]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 14 December 1999]: The National Health Service Executive Trent regional office has received an outline business case for a new breast care unit from Nottingham City Hospital NHS
  310W
  Trust. When the Department's capital allocations for 2000–01 are announced, this project will be considered along with other priorities.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has commissioned on the success rate for pre-operative diagnosis of breast cancer of the triple assessment method.[101983]

  (2) what research he has commissioned on the success rate for pre-operative diagnosis of each of the following forms of assessment for breast cancer (a) clinical examination, (b) mammography or ultrasound and (c) fine needle aspiration or core biopsy. [101982]

  (3) what percentage of breast cancer assessments are made by the use of the triple assessment method; and if he will list the figures for each NHS trust. [101984]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 15 December 1999]: We fund health and medical research, including that for breast cancer, in a number of ways.

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

  There is strong existing research evidence for the value of using the combination of clinical examination, mammography and fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) known as "triple assessment" to diagnose cancer in women with breast lesions. A review of 15 follow-up studies showed that triple assessment is consistently more sensitive than any single test alone, capable of picking up 95 per cent. to 100 per cent. of cancers when at least one component is positive. When all three tests give the same result, whether positive or negative, the probability that the diagnosis is correct is about 99 per cent. In most cases, therefore, women with three positive tests can be offered therapy and those whose tests are all negative can be reassured without the need for surgical biopsy. In addition, triple assessment can be carried out in a single visit, reducing the time to achieve a definitive diagnosis.

  "Improving Outcomes in Breast Cancer" was issued in 1996 by the NHS Executive Headquarters to provide evidence-based guidance on commissioning breast cancer services in the NHS. This recommends the use of triple assessment. A synopsis of the research evidence underlying the guidance was published alongside the guidance. Copies of both documents are available in the Library. We have invested an additional £30 million since 1997–98 to improve breast cancer services, building on this guidance.

  Information on the use of triple assessment is not collected centrally.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish their response to the Science and Technology Committee's report on the Scientific Advisory System: Mobile Phones and Health, HC (1998–99) 489. [103537]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government response to the Committee will be laid before the House tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Contract Nursing
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS paid for non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in 1998–99 in(a) England and (b) each NHS region. [102880]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

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

Rolls-Royce Nuclear Energy Services Ltd
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I declare an interest as a sometime member of Rolls-Royce and a pensioner of that company, though never in the nuclear division.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the contingency plan to protect the public from the effects of radiation in the event of a major nuclear incident at the factory of Rolls-Royce Nuclear Energy Services Ltd at Raynesway, Derby.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Raynesway is a civil site operated by Rolls-Royce to produce fuel for nuclear submarines. It is subject to UK civil nuclear regulations which are among the most stringent in the world. It is inspected regularly by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive. The Government are satisfied that the NII would not allow operations at the Raynesway site to continue unless it was fully satisfied that there was no unacceptable risk to the workers on the site or the public.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, is she aware of the extreme disquiet of local inhabitants about the siting of this plant in a largely residential area? Is she aware also that her colleague in the other place, Mr John Speller, said in a recent communication to Nick Clegg, MEP for East Midlands:
"Because there are to foreseeable off site circumstances of an accident at Raynesway, it has not been necessary to establish a public emergency plan".
In the light of the Tokaimura incident, which I know was a totally different process, does not the Minister feel that there should be such an emergency plan, because accidents can happen in spite of best endeavours?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, is referring to a good deal of press coverage which was generated after the Tokaimura incident. That occurred in October this year. The main thrust of the arguments put forward in the press at that time was that Rolls-Royce were keeping their activities secret and that local residents were at risk because they did not know what was going on. There are two points here. First, regular visits—around every six weeks or so—take place when the NII
302
seeks to ensure that the establishment is safe. Secondly, there is nothing secretive about what is happening at the site. A local liaison committee is hosted by Rolls-Royce. It was established at the site to provide a means of liaising with the community in order to provide the sort of reassurance that the noble Lord feels is necessary. I agree that it is necessary, but the disquiet is not based on any real problem at the site itself.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, my noble friend told us that there are no "unacceptable" risks on this site. Can she now tell us what are the acceptable risks?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret to say that risk is part of our everyday experience. I dare say that all of us on our way to your Lordships' House today ran some risk or other just in relation to traffic. When we are dealing with enriched uranium, which is a dangerous material, there must of course be stringent controls. The controls that the United Kingdom has in place are among the most stringent in the world. There are regular inspections and I can assure your Lordships that there is no reason to believe that there is any undue risk either to the workers or to the residents around the site.

Heathrow: Flight Path Changes
11.9 a.m.
Lord Annanasked Her Majesty's Government:
How often the flight paths into Heathrow airport are changed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the only fixed flight paths into Heathrow are those for the final approach; that is, after the aircraft have joined the instrument landing system. They are aligned with the runways and have not changed since the airport opened. They usually extend from 14 to 35 kilometres from touchdown, depending on how busy the airport is. There are no fixed routes for aircraft to follow before joining the final approach paths. A system of alternating the runway used for daytime landings at Heathrow during westerly operations has operated since 1972. This provides predictable periods of relief from landing noise for communities directly under the final approach paths up to about 12 kilometres from touchdown.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that London is the only great city which has passenger aircraft flying over it into its main airport? It does not happen in Paris, New York, Berlin, Rome or even Athens.
I must declare an interest, in that I live in Pimlico. Is the noble Lord aware that in west London people in modest houses with tiny gardens like my own take pleasure from sitting out in the evenings and in the

303
afternoon? However, it is almost impossible to do that when the noise of one aircraft as it disappears into the west is followed by the noise of another aircraft approaching from the east. Surely something can be done to ameliorate this situation, which affects anyone who lives west of Lambeth Bridge? Finally, does the noble Lord agree with me that it would be pure folly to have a fifth runway at Heathrow? Such a situation would be intolerable.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to the final point, the issue at stake is an additional terminal rather than an additional runway. It does not have direct implications in terms of number of movements but, given that it is a matter for public inquiry, the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment in substance.
As it happens, I too live in Pimlico when I am in London and I am aware that a significant number of regular flights take place across central London. However, it is a much better situation than that which I experienced when I spent a fair proportion of my boyhood living in the Hounslow area. At that time the level of noise from individual aircraft was considerably higher and there were more night flights. Technology has significantly improved the amount of noise that comes from aircraft. There will be another change in that in the year 2002, when the Chapter 2 aircraft will be phased out entirely. That will again improve the noise levels.
As to whether it is necessary for aircraft to pass over central London, it is an advantage that aircraft landing rather than aircraft take-off occurs over the built-up area, because take-off, at least in the immediate vicinity, is much noisier.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the fact that things are worse in Hounslow surely does not make it undesirable to make things better in Pimlico. Can the Minister tell us whether he manages to sleep at night with his window open, or does he, like many residents who live west of London, find it impossible to sleep healthily because of aircraft noise?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the comparison I was making was with Hounslow in the 1950s and 1960s, when aircraft were considerably noisier. Clearly it is of benefit to reduce the total amount of noise to any communities which are overflown. Indeed, the international aircraft industry has made great advances in recent years, while meeting increased demand. As regards my sleeping habits, I shall not bother the House any further in that respect.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the simple truth that there have far too many aircraft landing at Heathrow and that a substantial number of them should be obliged to land at other London airports which are available?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, put simply, there is a significant increase in air traffic. Although much of it
304
has been taken care of by increased capacity of individual aircraft, the demand is there and it is on all London airports. It would be difficult to see any significant reduction in the number of aircraft going into Heathrow in the foreseeable future. Although we take an overall approach to regional airport planning, the pressure on London airports as a whole is likely to remain.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether anything has been done to alter the profile of the landing path by bringing the aircraft in at a higher level nearer to the threshold?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the air traffic control operates tactically to get aircraft into the final approach level. I cannot explain this very easily without visual aids, but there are four stacking places as they come into the final approach. Depending on the weather conditions and the wind, some aircraft start further out and from a higher level than others. However, all that forms part of the tactical decisions that the air traffic controllers have to take as regards the aircraft, and so on, on the particular day. Of course, at the end of the day they all have to come down to the same level.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are a number of us in the Chamber who thoroughly approve of the present number of flights at Heathrow and would like to see more of them? Does the noble Lord realise that some of us do not agree at all with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the important airports of the world and that we would add Sydney, Rio and many of the Asian airports to that list, all of which do have air terminals and airports that are very close to their main cities? Indeed, this is an added tourist attraction. Further, is he aware that every night my husband welcomes the sound of Concorde flying over and hopes that it may long continue? There are many people living in central London who are not disturbed by air traffic noise. However, we have every sympathy with those living right next to an airport.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I bow to the noble Baroness's experience of airports of the world. When the noble Lord was speaking, it certainly occurred to me that there are a number of airports that are situated closer to the city centre than is the case with Heathrow. The importance of Heathrow to our economy and to our well-being is very much recognised by this Government. That involves a significant number of movements into London.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may persuade the noble Lord to go a little further into something that he referred to a short while ago; namely, another improvement in noise levels. Not everyone is aware of there having been any improvement at all. Will the noble Lord just think a little about the effect of these constant flights over Kew

305
Gardens, where the real delights and beauty of the place are spoilt to a very large extent by this awful phenomenon?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, since the noble Lord had responsibility for these matters, I believe that the noise of aircraft has significantly reduced. However, perhaps I am wrong in that respect and civil aviation was not part of his portfolio at that time. If that is so, I apologise to the noble Lord. I am not entirely familiar with the changes in Whitehall boundaries.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the department of which I was a very humble part thought that air transport had nothing to do with transport.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that we can see the progress that has been made by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister in this respect. There have been very significant changes. When comparing weight for weight current aircraft noise is actually something like a sixth to a tenth less than was the case previously. There are also more movements and aircraft are larger. Nevertheless, as compared with about a decade ago, the average aircraft is half as noisy as it was in the past. That is a great tribute both to those who put pressure on the manufacturing industry and to the industry itself world-wide.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Elton, what is the earliest time in the morning at which aircraft may make an approach to Heathrow? At what times are aircraft switched over from the north to the south runway at Heathrow?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the two shifts, as it were, run from seven o'clock in the morning to three o'clock in the afternoon and from three o'clock to eleven o'clock at night. We shall shortly introduce a night-time alternation. There are few take-offs but many landings at night.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I asked what is the earliest time in the morning at which an aircraft may make an approach to Heathrow. I think that it is probably about half-past four. I say that as I too am a resident of Pimlico!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have greatly restricted night-time flying into Heathrow although, strictly speaking, there is no absolute ban. We have limited the number in agreement with the airlines and the airport. Take-offs tend not to occur before four o'clock in the morning.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, there is a rumour that Biggin Hill may be developed as a further large airport. Is this a rumour or a fact?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are rumours around the country that almost every former military airport
306
is about to be turned into a mini Heathrow. A number of schemes exist but no decision is pending as regards Biggin Hill or the vast majority of the other airports which are the subject of rumours.

UN Security Council: UK Veto
11.21 a.m.
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to retain the United Kingdom's veto seat on the United Nations Security Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are opposed to any change to the current veto rights of permanent members of the UN Security Council. But the UK has long argued that the veto should be used with restraint and in a manner consistent with the principles of the Charter. We have been true to our word. It has been almost 10 years since the UK last cast a blocking vote.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that robust Answer. I recognise, as it clearly does, that Britain's role as a veto power in the Security Council is part of our position as a pivotal power in the world. What plans do the Government view as possible for the enlargement of the Security Council permanent membership, and does that inevitably mean that additional permanent members would be veto members? Will it be possible to constrain the number who would be admitted to make the council continue to be workable as it has begun to be since the end of the Cold War?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no decision has been made in relation to whether any of the countries who may be invited to figure in enlargement should have vetoes extended to them. That matter will have to be discussed in due course. We do not believe that expansion only in the non-permanent membership would restore confidence in the council, nor would it accurately reflect the realities of the modern world. We are hopeful that things will move forward to enable enlargement to take place.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness's robust first reply to my noble friend. Does she agree that the United Kingdom is in an unusual position in having no pretensions to be a super power but nevertheless possessing an effective military capability? It has a long history of respectable participation in international affairs and a distinguished record in peacekeeping and other security matters. It is therefore not only in the United

307
Kingdom's interest that we should retain this position; it is in the interests of the wider international community as well.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how further development of a European common foreign and security policy affects the position of both Britain and France as permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as the third elected seat normally occupied by a member of the European Union?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there will be no significant change in relation to the permanent membership. The rules of course will be looked at in terms of enlargement, but there will be no significant change.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the view that intra-state conflict increasingly poses as much of a threat to international stability as inter-state conflict and that as a result the United Nations has been much more actively engaged in peacekeeping roles in its very recent history than possibly in the whole of its previous history put together? At the same time the cases of Kosovo and Iraq have demonstrated that the more frequent use of military force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter increasingly poses a threat to Security Council unanimity and the consensus-based nature of UN politics. In that context, can the Minister outline the ways in which the Government intend to take a fresh lead in rethinking the UN's role in contemporary world politics?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree that we are faced with a new challenge in terms of intra-state conflict as opposed to inter-state conflict. We are firmly of the view that Security Council enlargement would assist in terms of developing a new way forward. Your Lordships will know that the humanitarian aspect has been incredibly important. That is something that we intend to continue to pursue with the Security Council to enhance consensus and improve the way forward.

RN and RAF Patrols: Christmas
11.26 a.m.
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether full naval and Royal Air Force patrols will continue over the Christmas period.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, emergency services such as search and rescue and the RAF's Quick Reaction Alert will be on standby over the Christmas period, as they are every day. Depending on operational commitments, most Royal
308
Navy ships and submarines will be in port, either in the UK or in overseas operational theatres. RAF operations overseas will continue as necessary, but normal training will be suspended. These arrangements are applied annually at this time to allow as many servicemen and women as possible to spend time with their families. A full defence capability will be maintained over the period.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is it true to say that only designated tasks, such as Yugoslavia and the Gulf, will result in ships being at sea? The noble Baroness also mentioned flying training. Can she confirm that, because of a shortage of money, all flying training and operational flying has been cut by the Government by 50 per cent?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are in a little difficulty with this Question. The noble Lord's Question specifically refers to the Christmas period. The fact is that there is nothing unusual happening over the Christmas period. As regards the Royal Navy, plans are unchanged; the majority of the fleet will be alongside. HMS "Exeter" will be in the Gulf, HMS "Somerset" will be in the South Atlantic and HMS "Dumbarton Castle" will be in the Falklands. I believe that the noble Lord is concerned about the Navy in the post-Christmas period. The noble Lord has also asked about the RAF. As regards the RAF, it is a case of business as usual. Operations have been unaffected by any of the financial constraints to which the noble Lord refers. Operations within individual theatres will continue under the command of local commanders.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can indulge in some joined-up government with her noble friend Lord Whitty, who has already demonstrated his mastery of air traffic control. My six year-old son expects a visitor on 24th December. If a Frank Dobson look-alike appears on the radar screen, will the RAF and air traffic control guarantee priority landing rights at the McNally household?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that there will be many priority households on that particular night. Were I to single one out, I am sure that many other six year-olds would be greatly disappointed. The important point is that the defence capability of the United Kingdom will be maintained this year over the Christmas and New Year periods, as your Lordships would rightly expect.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will Trident be on full alert over Christmas?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the House would expect, there will be a deterrent submarine at sea over the Christmas period.
Lord Monson: My Lords, will British servicemen on naval patrol in the Gulf be permitted to enjoy pork

309
sausages with their Christmas turkey, in contrast to their unfortunate land-based counterparts stationed in various parts of the Middle East, if press reports are accurate?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have a feeling that we are straying a teeny bit away from the original Question. I am sure that all servicemen and servicewomen who are not able to have the pleasure of being with their families at Christmas—as most of us are—will none the less enjoy thoroughly good food wherever they are.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is unlikely that there will be a major attack on this country over the Christmas period, but does the Minister agree that, as the late Lord Cheshire warned, this could be the kind of period when a terrorist might mount an attack?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, far be it from me to detract from the seasonal goodwill which we all expect to evince at this time of the year. We should not, on the one hand, talk up the possibility of people thinking that our defences are down over Christmas; or, on the other hand, overlook the possibility of an eventuality of the kind to which the noble Lord alluded. The important point is to remember what I said in concluding my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham: that a full defence capability will be maintained for the people of this country over Christmas and into the New Year.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister's initial difficulty with this Question, can she confirm that Flag Officer Sea Training is being reduced to using simulators because financial shortages are pre venting ships from putting to sea for training?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is important to distinguish which period we are talking about. In my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I was able to assure him that, in relation to the particular Question he posed about the Christmas period, there are no changes. However, some adjustments will be made to planned activity after the Christmas period—a point which I hope I made clear in answering the supplementary quest ion of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. For the remainder of the financial year, it is proposed that there will be some withdrawals from planned exercises. It is important, however, to assure the House. These withdrawals have to be put into the context of the enormously busy and highly successful year that the Royal Navy has enjoyed. Apart from normal operations in the Gulf, the Atlantic, fishery protection and normal deterrence, we should not forget that the Royal Navy has been extremely active and very successful in Sierra Leone, in the Gulf, in Kosovo and in East Timor. It has had a very good year.

Business
11.33 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 12.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the case of Thompson and Venables.

Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish the learning and skills council for England and the national council for education and training for Wales; to make other provision about education and training; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Census (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Schedule to the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required in respect of religion. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Weatherill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through its remaining stages today.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.]
11.34 a.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Consolidated text of Acts
CONSOLIDATED TEXT OF ACTS
. On the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a copy of the consolidated text of the following Acts—

(a) Army Act 1955,

(b) Air Force Act 1955, and

(c) Naval Discipline Act 1957.").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, which I hope will not take long, I realise that I am sailing what is a well-entrenched pillar of our constitution; namely, that our legislation should not be easily understood.
It has been a matter of increasing regret and concern to me over the years that I have spent in Parliament that Parliament and its masters should give so little thought to the difficulties which confront those who have to handle bulky and very often incomprehensible legislation. It is poured out in huge quantities by successive governments; often it is of a very low quality; and it is handed to Parliament for a kind of churning process to bring it to some kind of handleable state.
I realise that this is not the moment to dilate on the complexity or the incomprehensibility of our tax laws and the host of regulations which flow from them. I am concerned with the simple point that those in the Armed Forces who have to handle this legislation should have it presented to them in a form at least as acceptable as possible. I am not now talking about someone's ability to understand it—or the possibility of it being understood by anyone—but about the number of documents which those responsible for implementing the law have in front of them when they are trying to find out what the position is. The amendment seeks slightly to reduce the difficulties, in that it would make it possible for those concerned with the legislation to have in front of them not two versions of an Act but one.
I am obliged to the Minister for kindly writing to me on this subject. Perhaps I may have her permission to quote one short paragraph of her letter. I am not entirely sure what it means. I have a slight suspicion that maybe it is not her own lucid drafting. It states:
"This production of consolidated texts will be repeated next year in order to reflect any changes in the meantime, including those arising from the Armed Forces Discipline Bill itself. This will be because of the introduction in the next session of the quinquennial Armed Forces Bill".
Would the noble Baroness be kind enough to enlighten the House on what exactly is meant by that paragraph?
Perhaps I may briefly mention the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. One sentence on page 3 of the report
312
indicates at least the possibility of very considerable complexity becoming a permanent ingredient of this subject. The sentence reads as follows:
"The rules will be part of a framework consisting of existing legislation and subordinate legislation made under it. The whole will have to be compatible with Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1988".
I believe that there are grounds for concern here and I cherish the hope that this modest amendment will be accepted by the Government. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I realise that some quarters—I hope that I should not include the noble Baroness in this—regard it as a dangerous attack upon the principle of the constitution, which requires legislation in all its forms to be as complex and incomprehensible as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, addresses the longer term, once the legislation has been implemented. However, in his remarks and in the words he quoted from the letter of the noble Baroness, it appears that some thought has been given as regards the short term. It is upon that aspect of the matter that I should like to say a few words.
Perhaps I may give an example. If a base established in the United Kingdom is occupied by two formations of Her Majesty's Forces and the principle of "jointery" has already been implemented, what would be the position of a commanding officer of one of those services when sentencing one of his own men? Would it be possible for the accused, upon conviction, to appeal to the base commander as a second step? The commander may—indeed, probably would—be from another service and operating under an entirely different Act.
If the accused then appeals to what is referred to in the Bill as a judicial officer appointed by the Judge Advocate General, will both of those legal figures be conversant with the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957? In other words, will there be "jointery" in the legal world to match "jointery" in the Armed Forces?
Lord Renton: I wish most warmly to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, which I consider to be important. The three Acts referred to, which are listed in the Long Title of the Bill, in any case overlap to a great extent. If they were to be consolidated, the statute book, which is getting longer and longer, would be shortened. We should do all we can to enact matters in a more concise way.
Furthermore, I am sure that no one will dispute the fact that over the past 60 years—perhaps a little—longer there has been a fortunate tendency for the three Armed Forces to draw closer together, not only in peace-time but also in war. That being the case, I should have thought that to have one discipline Act for all three Armed Forces would be a very great practical advantage.
Lord Elton: Will the noble Baroness consider a case that will soon arise, perhaps to illustrate her response

313
to my noble friend Lord Renton? When the Tri-service College is established at Shrivenham, will the commandant of that college, who might be an airman, when he hears a case involving a seaman, apply to the offender the disciplinary procedures relevant to that service?
I apologise to noble Lords if l expressed that inelegantly. More plainly, the commanding officer will have men from other services under him. No doubt that already applies and there is already a convention as to which rules are to he used when the case is heard. However, it would be helpful if, when the noble Baroness replies to my noble friend, she could explain to those noble Lords who do not know, how the system works in a case of that sort.
Lord Craig of Radley: I wish to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Peyton. In my comments during the Second Reading debate, I expressed my unease about the very short time that would pass between the Bill before us receiving Royal Assent and 2nd October 2000, when the implications and practical detail of the legislation will need to be applied in reality i n all three of the armed services. Any action that would assist those who will need to disseminate the required information and ensure that the law is followed properly is to be supported. I believe that the proposal contained in this amendment would do that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish wholly to support what my noble friend has proposed in his amendment. As I understand it, there is substantial disparity between the three service discipline Acts. Perhaps I may ask, therefore, whether, in order to consolidate, one would not first need to remove those substantial disparities. Would that not require further short legislation?
Lord Renton: With great respect to my noble friend, I should have thought there would be only an occasional clause that would need to be addressed as regards disparity. I agree that it would be necessary to deal with it, but I do not think that that would take up too much of any consolidation measure.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I, too, wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peyton. He referred to the principle that legislation should not be too easily understood. As a practising lawyer, I have some sympathy with that proposition. Therefore, to some extent it is with mixed emotions that I offer my support to my noble friend.
However, it is undoubtedly true that when one studies the Bill and searches for the existing law, it is not at all easy to find. Perhaps I may make one practical suggestion. Would it be possible for the Government and parliamentary counsel to draw down from their computerised statute law database a print of the relevant Acts in their present form and to make those available in the Library? That would assist noble Lords at later stages of the Bill. Several noble Lords will be aware that the Government plan to make all
314
statute law presently in force available on the Internet, and that they hope to do that in the course of the next year. However, if for any reason that has not proved possible to achieve, perhaps the relevant Acts that refer to the Bill before us could be placed in the Library. That would be of great assistance.
In regard to when it would be sensible to consolidate, I incline to the view that it might be better to do that in the next Session; namely, after the new armed forces Bill heralded by the Minister during her speech at Second Reading has gone through your Lordships' House. I foresee that implementation of the Human Rights Act will bring forth problems other than those which the Bill seeks to address. While I believe that the Ministry of Defence are to be congratulated on facing up to the implications of that Act by bringing forward the Bill before us, the debate which took place at Second Reading made it clear that it will not be an easy exercise to reconcile all the different interests involved. I should like to propose—I hope that this will find favour with the Minister—that in the next Session, in tandem with the substantive Bill to alter the law, a consolidation Bill should move through its procedural stages so that the two Acts of Parliament would come into force, one immediately following the other.
Lord Annan: I add my voice in support of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. When dealing with a subject such as discipline, it is extremely important that the legislation should be clear. Whether or not we like it, attitudes to discipline have changed over the past 30 or 40 years. In my day as a don at Cambridge, if an undergraduate was sent down, he went down. Now, of course, he does not. He argues the case before a tribunal and then an appeal court to that tribunal. It is extremely important that anything to do with discipline should be crystal clear. I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Lord Glenarthur: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peyton and I agree with the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Over the years I have had experience of trying to get from the Library an up-to-date text of Acts that have been amended many times. I wonder whether the Minister can say how often statutes in force in respect of this matter are amended. When was the most recent amendment to statutes in force? Those of us who are not as familiar as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay with getting their data over the Internet might still like to get the information from the Library. What delay is there in bringing these statutes up to date for easy reference?
Lord Burnham: My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon made an important point when he referred to the difficulty that he, as a lawyer, has in understanding legislation to do with the military. Members of the Committee on all sides have united in supporting my noble friend Lord Peyton, and I do the same. The Bill has an enormous number of amendments—not on a Greater London Authority

315
Bill scale but an enormous number nevertheless. One of the major reasons is that virtually every amendment has had to be repeated two and even three times. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consult the draftsman, who will have nothing to do over Christmas, to see whether by the next stage of the Bill we can have a serious go at consolidating the Armed Forces discipline Acts. They are 40 years old. The European Convention on Human Rights, with which we are much concerned in the Bill, is 50 years old. We would make a nonsense of the matter if we let the Bill go through in the form in which it stands at the moment.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, has highlighted the difficulties encountered by anyone trying to read the three service discipline Acts. Since being enacted in the 1950s they have been very heavily amended and no one can claim that they are easy to follow. However, the Committee will know that it is the practice of departments introducing primary legislation that amends already heavily amended legislation to prepare updated texts of the existing legislation and place those in the Libraries and the Public Bill Offices of both Houses. That is an aid to Parliament's consideration of the amending legislation. On that basis, updated copies of the Army and the Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 have been prepared and were recently placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Acts will be further amended if Parliament enacts the present legislation. In the next Session we expect to introduce the quinquennial armed services Bill. That Bill will cover a wide range of different issues. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not expect me to anticipate those in any detail at this stage. It follows that at around this time next year we will have prepared further updated texts on the discipline Acts and we will put those further updated texts on the discipline Acts in the Libraries of both Houses. I hope that that process is found to be of value. I am sure that many noble Lords still deal with matters, as I do myself, very much on a paper basis, but the updated texts are also available electronically.
We acknowledge that there has been a longstanding intention to consolidate the service discipline Acts. I strongly agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about the need to consolidate the Acts. That point was made by a number of noble Lords. However, I would say that this is a task of a rather different order and one which has to produce a new baseline of service legislation. The Government are considering moving now to a tri-service discipline Act. I hope that that provides the assurance which was sought by the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux, Lord Renton and Lord Burnham, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. It is important to stress that that will be a major undertaking. We expect to receive advice. It will take some time for us to consider the best way forward but we must have a look at consolidating the Acts. Such a consolidation would supersede the current legislation.
316
I hope that I have been able to assure the Committee that we are addressing both the substance and the presentation of the issue. Both are important if people are properly to understand the discipline under which they operate as individuals in the armed services and if the rest of us are to understand the way in which the armed services operate. On the basis that updated, "cleaned up" texts, if I may put it that way, are available in both Houses, that they are available electronically, and that consideration will be given to consolidation of the Armed Forces discipline Acts, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: We are in Committee and therefore I do not think I need apologise for coming back to this point or for speaking from a certain background of ignorance. What has concerned me about the exchanges—I refer to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon—is that we have been referring only to our own difficulty in dealing with the legislation. But where it matters is in the field. Officers—quite junior officers—will be expected to untangle this great web of legislation. They will be expected to know what to do and how to restrain or to keep in custody people from their own service, let alone of another. I would be much more comforted by news of how that difficulty is to be resolved.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. It is important that those in the field, at whatever level, understand the discipline under which they are operating. There will need to be proper understanding within all three armed services of any changes brought about by the legislation. The services at all levels want to introduce the compliant disciplinary procedures in the Bill as soon as possible. Ideally, they would like the revised procedures introduced in the current legislative Session. I can tell the Committee that that is the firm recommendation of the chiefs of staff. If such legislation is to be enacted, of course it is then incumbent on the chiefs of staff and those who support them, and indeed the civilian administration, to ensure that the provisions are properly understood, not only by such people as your Lordships but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, out in the field where it really matters.
Noon
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have no wish to quarrel with the noble Baroness. She listens with care and answers with courtesy and intelligence. What more could one ask of a Minister—except perhaps that she should utter the very simple words, "Yes, of course I accept this". She disappointed me in that rather important point.
First, I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, found it difficult to understand the purpose of my amendment. I thought it was so clear that I did not need to go into it in any detail. We wanted to avoid the unfortunate people who will have to handle the legislation being faced with too many documents, all of them complicated, at the same time.

317
I echo the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton. I am not in the least concerned with parliamentary convenience. Some of us are quite good at complaining. I am not very good at it. I am sure that I shall learn in time. We do our best to raise our voices every now and again when we are singularly ill treated by authority. At least we have a means of redress. The unfortunate commanding officer faced with the problem will have no such means of redress. He will simply be saddled with the various fragments of this indigestible lump. I hesitate to use the word "consumer" about anything so indigestible, but I have considerable sympathy with the ultimate user of the legislation. I invite the Government to show the same sympathy and understanding as are clearly felt by those who have spoken to the amendment. I am not sure that the noble Baroness's reference to the quinquennial Act took me too far down the road to understanding what will happen. I do not know exactly how that Act will help and whether it will meet the point that I raise.
Towards the end of her remarks, the noble Baroness used the phrase, "a major undertaking". I am not sure that I am all that sorry about asking the Government to carry out a major undertaking. If there were some more effective deterrence to governments before they put forward ill-thought-out and incomprehensible legislation I should be happier.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for their eloquent support on the simple but important point enshrined in the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having gone as far as she has and in the way that she has. I still hope that she will consider the point again and chide her department a little. She might also remind her department that, after a long struggle, it is now a unified Ministry of Defence and that co-ordination is its business. Co-ordination is one of those "boss" words used by Ministers when they have nothing else to say; they say that their job is to "co-ordinate". There is one thing of which we can be certain: any time that anyone starts co-ordinating anything, whether it be road traffic or armed forces, they will encounter the objections of people who do not wish to be co-ordinated. Again and again, governments meekly surrender. I shall consider carefully whether to return to this point on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("Active service exclusion
PERSONS ENGAGED UNDER ACTIVE SERVICE CONDITIONS
. Engagement under active service conditions on the part of a person to whom the provisions of this Act would otherwise apply shall constitute for the purposes of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1951 and the Human Rights Act 1998 a state of public emergency in relation to that person.").
The noble Lord said: It is interesting to note how the various parts of the, Bill link together. Both my noble friend Lord Peyton and my noble friend Lord Elton
318
spoke to this amendment. The amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 3 to 14 and 77. They fall into separate groups.
I must confess that I started off by looking at the Bill with regard to the difficulties of implementing it, if it is enacted, in the field. It is a problem. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is not in his place. He seems to confuse undergraduates and soldiers. He seems to think that everything that can be applied to an undergraduate can be applied to a soldier, and vice versa.
There will be many occasions when it will not be possible for this legislation to be operated because of the nature of the service. At Second Reading, a number of speakers, including myself, referred to problems in the field. We shall come in due course to the question of video links, which is dealt with in a later amendment. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Vivian is ill and is unable to be present. He and my noble friend Lord Attlee, as the most recent serving soldiers, have the best knowledge of what actually goes on.
My Amendment No. 77 makes it clear that in no way are we attempting to get out of applying justice in the way in which it is envisaged by the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act. What concerns us in these amendments is the timing, and that it is just not possible to operate in the manner prescribed.
I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has to say on the matter raised in Amendment No. 2. On the basis of the principle behind the amendment, he originally added his name to it before actually seeing it, and has since withdrawn his name. I recognise clearly that Article 15 of the Convention on Human Rights refers to,
"a war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
In no way is it considered that in many cases where we should wish to implement Amendments Nos. 3 to 14 is there a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. However, there are plenty of matters of a lesser nature which are extremely important.
Section 224 of the Army Act would allow the discipline provisions, if this were applied, to be operated for discipline in Northern Ireland, where in the past the definition of active service used has included armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters and pirates. Other parts of the Bill refer to international conflict. I appreciate that it would be difficult to argue that the work of the Armed Forces in Kosovo was, in the words of the convention, a
"public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
The amendments are slightly different. Amendment No. 2 is an overriding amendment and its purpose is that there should be a derogation when Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights is involved. In those cases it may be that the Bill is unenforceable. The other amendments deal with active service conditions; they roughly propose the same and

319
we are trying to change the timing. Amendment No. 77 makes it clear that we are not trying to get out of it. The amendment states that if the time limits are,
"disapplied by reason of active service conditions, [they] shall start to run twelve hours after the person arrested or the unit in which he is serving ceases to be on active service".
Amendment No. 2 is a matter of principle, Amendments Nos. 3 to 14 are not; they are practicalities. I hope that the noble Baroness will give consideration to the serious problems which will arise as a result of the Bill as it stands. With that, I beg to move.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there are difficulties with Amendment No. 2, but the Committee may believe that Amendments Nos. 14 and 77 are wholly requisite and well founded. The difficulty presented by Amendment No. 2 is this. My noble friend says that it is an overriding amendment and there should be some derogation from Article 15. The difficulty is that, to be effective, derogations from Article 15 have to take place at the time that the convention is ratified. They cannot be introduced by the domestic legislation of member states in any event. Article 15 relates to measures taken by the high contracting parties in a public emergency in which the life of the nation, the high contracting party, is threatened. It is not in any way concerned with the situation affecting an individual person.
The amendment proposes an interpretation of Article 15 which it cannot bear. It would not be appropriate to seek to re-write the provisions of Article 15 or the 1988 Act as proposed by the amendment. Although this is a domestic statute, the Armed Forces discipline purports to implement other provisions of the convention.
I thank my noble friend Lord Burnham for tabling Amendment No. 2 because, as a probing amendment, it affords a valuable opportunity to discuss a practical omission from the Bill. I know that there are certain amendments, which I support, that Clauses 11 and 14 to 25 should not stand part. But let us assume that they do stand part. Amendment No. 89, in my name, concerns the appellate courts martial courts and deals solely with matters of the convention. Let us assume that it is rejected. As for some kind of exclusion clause, behind the concept of my noble friend Lord Burnham, there is the introduction of an exclusion clause. We should have an exclusion clause applicable to discipline in Her Majesty's Armed Forces engaged in armed active service, including peace-keeping. That is one of the reasons that Amendment No. 14, introduced by my noble friend Lord Burnham, is of such importance.
It is much to be doubted whether such an exclusion clause in our domestic legislation would be considered by the Commission or the Court of Human Rights to be in breach of any article of the convention. Let us take the following situation which is new, relevant and must be considered. Our Government and the French Government propose to enter into a joint enterprise
320
and set up a rapid reaction force. I gather that it would be quite sizeable, 60,000. It is important that there should be no disparity of treatment as regards discipline as between members of that force. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, took the point on Second Reading that we know that France has opted out of the convention. We have not done that. The amendment which I proposed originally, which in a sense started this, did not seek to do that and I shall deal with it. It simply sought to remove the Armed Forces discipline problem from the fast-track procedure. The question of us opting out of the convention was never part of the argument.
It would be difficult to say so, but I cannot see that in the circumstances of the joint venture between the French and the English, the European Court of Justice could accept a form of substantial disparity in treatment. I suggest that the Court of Justice would not find an exclusion clause, roughly along the lines I proposed, in breach of any article of the convention. I thank my noble friend Lord Burnham for his probing Amendment No. 2, which gives an opportunity for discussion of that aspect of the matter if Members of the Committee so wish.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I find myself in a difficult situation, not being a lawyer. It seems to me that in practical terms it would not be possible, under severe active service conditions, to apply most of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, to my mind, the amendments should be supported.
One of the essential elements when one is on active service—and I mean active service, not just peace-keeping—is that one must deal with offences quickly. The man must return to his duties with the least possible delay. I accept that, for example, in peacekeeping operations in Kosovo or somewhere like that it would be possible, although very difficult, to apply the provisions as they now appear in the Bill. But if one were involved in more intense operations of the kind envisaged within NATO—for example, the Gulf, if it had gone on for longer—the provisions of the Bill could not be made to work unless someone who committed an offence was automatically removed from the theatre of war, which would be very undesirable. I therefore support the amendment.
One must be very careful about defining "active service conditions". In the Second World War every charge against a soldier, even for stealing a loaf of bread, started off "WOAS" (When On Active Service). I understand that that has not been used for nearly a quarter of a century. While I am not an expert on legal phraseology, I believe that somehow provision must be made for operations of higher intensity when it would not be practical to apply the measures as now set out in the Bill.
Lord Braman: Before I support the active service exclusion clauses tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, perhaps I may try to dispel one misapprehension which was aired or implied during Second Reading; namely, that invariably there is a conflict between justice and

321
military discipline and, therefore, this Bill is necessary to strike a balance between those two essentials. I do not believe that that is the case at all. There may be some instances under operational conditions when justice must be a bit "rough". I can think of one example when I commanded a battalion on active service in the jungles of east Malaysia in a conflict against Indonesia. We experienced a rash of accidental discharges of weapons which constituted a great risk to our troops. I told the whole battalion that it should be fully aware in advance that if in future anyone committed the offence the punishment would invariably be 28 clays' detention. It concentrated the mind marvellously and stopped that dangerous indulgence just lire that. It was widely accepted as being necessary. In the circumstances, I believed that that was justice however difficult, if not impossible, it would have been to implement under the new Bill as it stands. At worst it saved possible injury and followed the two main principles of discipline: that the action should be consistent and that it should be thoroughly well understood. In any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out during Second Reading, in such conditions discipline must come first.
If the whole Bill cannot be modified in the interests of service discipline—I trust that it can be as a result of what takes place later in the debate—I hope that it will be done at least in relation to active service conditions. Despite the views of the Adjutant-General's department or otter personnel departments, I ask the noble Baroness to look again at the whole question of differentiation between active service and home service. It is under active service conditions that the innovations in this Bill would cause the most damage. Further, as my noble and gallant friend said, these measures would be largely unworkable.
Lord Burnham: Before the noble Baroness replies, particularly in view of the observations of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, perhaps she will deal with Amendment No. 2 separately from the others. I believe that that is concerned with the principle and the others with practicalities.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Having heard what the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, said, many noble Lords will be of the view that some solution must be found to the problem they identified; namely, that in its present form the Bill can create difficulty when troops are engaged on active service. Very wisely, they do not go as far as to say that it will always create difficulty but, based on their long experience, they envisage that the Bill as presently drafted may lead to such a problem. As a lawyer but layman in military terms, I suggest that a solution to the problem requires to be found because of the possible implications for the authority of the commanding officer of a battalion, the morale of the troops who serve under him and the effect on the execution of the military campaign on which they are engaged at the relevant time.
I was present for most of the Second Reading and have read through the whole debate in Hansard. I have not seen any effective answer to the concerns raised on
322
all sides of the Chamber. If a solution to the problem is to be found, perhaps the noble Baroness is prepared to consider, with her officials and advisers, the regime introduced by the Armed Forces Act 1996 for the purposes of determining whether it is necessary to hold a field general court martial as opposed to a general or district court martial. Section 103A of the Army Act, which was introduced by the 1996 Act, provides that,
"(1) Where an officer to whom this subsection applies—

(a) is commanding a body of the regular forces on active service; and

(b) is of opinion that it is not possible without serious detriment to the public service for a charge against a member of that body to be tried by a general or district court-martial,

he may direct that the charge be tried by a field general court-martial".
Later provisions introduced by Schedule 1 to that Act provide that such a field general court martial can sit without having as one of its constituent members a judge advocate. Therefore, the Act introduces a two-stage test: first, the commanding officer is required to be in command of a body of the regular forces on active service; secondly, he must be of the opinion that in the particular circumstances with which he is confronted it is not possible without serious detriment to the public service for the normal form of court martial to take place.
I believe that a solution based on that general approach may be one way to address the practical problem repeatedly identified today and by speakers during the Second Reading debate. If it were a way forward it might apply not only to the clauses with which this amendment is concerned but also to some other provisions which clearly cause concern to noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I do not have military experience, but as a civilian I have studied defence from the outside for some time. Part of the difficulty with this amendment is to try to imagine circumstances today in which active service involves considerable periods of time out of contact with one's command structure. I recall a Royal Marine telling me of an occasion during the occupation of northern Iraq after the Gulf War when a Dutch marine attached to a British Royal Marines commander at one point referred back to The Hague before accepting the order of a British senior marine. Someone remarked to me the other day that even if the Prime Minister did not want to talk to you when on active service it was quite likely that someone from the BBC, CNN or Sky News would pop up to ask a question.
I do not believe that the kinds of military operations in which we were engaged even 20 or 30 years ago, when operations in jungle conditions, submarines or elsewhere were necessarily much more autonomous, apply today. I struggle to think of circumstances on active service under which such a broadly phrased amendment could be needed. There may conceivably be some extreme cases where emergencies may apply. The amendment is extremely wide and seems to me undesirable.
12.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the noble Lord's contribution. He identifies our concern about the principle of the need for military discipline. The noble Lord assumes that we shall never become involved in military operations which go horribly wrong. My great fear is that one day we shall be involved in military operations where we may be cut off from the command structure and MoD—and the noble Lord will be found to be wrong.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The most recent military operation which went horribly wrong was the Dutch involvement in Srebenica. Lack of communication was not part of that. Communications were extremely good. The failure to gain answers or reinforcements from outside was what was wrong in Srebenica. It was not a question of being out of touch.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I believe that the amendments have been grouped together because the noble Lord has a number of linked concerns about the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces were the Bill to be enacted as it stands. The noble Lord has asked me to separate out the way in which I deal with what he describes as his point of principle on Amendment No. 2. I can then deal with the other amendments together if that is helpful to the noble Lord.
The intention of Amendment No. 2 is clear. However, I believe that the intention of Article 15 of the convention is clear, too. The article is quite specific in its provisions. Those are that any state may take measures derogating from the convention—and I quote, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—
"to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation"—
and this may only be,
"in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
I believe it would be difficult to argue that the range of circumstances covered by the noble Lord's amendment would qualify for a derogation under Article 15. The noble Lord's amendment refers to "active service conditions". In another amendment they are defined as "active operational duties". I am sure that I do not need to remind noble Lords of the range of operational activities undertaken by our Armed Forces. They are all important. But I do not think any of us would suggest that they all amount to war. Of course they do not; nor do they all amount to dealing with emergencies which threaten the life of the nation.
Of course, we could try to argue that the operations in, for example, East Timor are of such a nature as to justify a derogation under Article 15 of the convention. This would be an issue on which we would ultimately need to persuade the Court at Strasbourg. We should have to demonstrate that we were at war or that the life of the nation was under threat. We should then have to demonstrate that our suspension of the relevant article of the convention was a proportionate act in the
324
circumstances. I do not need to tell the Committee what expectation I have of the possibility of success in those circumstances. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
I stress to the Committee that there are other issues at stake here. First, there is the Government's full commitment to the principles of the convention. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, is right. This is an argument which goes to the principle of the legislation. It is the principle of being compliant with the convention that the Government seek to uphold in this legislation. The proposed amendment would run counter to that principle and to that policy as well as to the spirit and the letter of the convention.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that it was in this Parliament, and not so very long ago, that we decided to commit ourselves to legislate upon the convention. I am sure that we shall have some discussions about the debate we had at that time.
Lord Bramall: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Does the noble Baroness accept that the wars in the Falklands and the Gulf would meet the conditions she mentioned?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: That is a difficult point. As the noble and gallant Lord will know far better than I do, the declaration of a state of war has very specific legal implications. We can be in armed conflict without necessarily being at war. Indeed, it is often not in the interests of the United Kingdom when we are in armed conflict to elevate that to the level of declaring ourselves to be at war because of the difficulties that would emerge in the way that third party countries would have to treat the United Kingdom.
Of course there are circumstances where there are armed conflicts but where, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, and as has been clear in some recent conflicts, we do not declare war because of the difficulties that would arise with other legal relationships were we to do so.
Lord Burnham: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her yet again. However, I must point out to her that in a debate in your Lordships' House earlier this week we touched on the difficulties of deciding what is a state of war. The Americans, who are normally our allies, have very different legislation on what is or is not a state of war. With respect, I do not think that her remarks to the noble and gallant Lord apply in those circumstances.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I agree with the noble Lord that there are different interpretations of a state of war. During the course of debates today perhaps I may ask my officials to ensure that I have placed in my hand the internationally agreed definition—I believe that there are such conventions—so that that is available to us. That may give us some help on the issue.

325
I was referring to the passing of the Human Rights Act. When we discussed this legislation at Second Reading a number of noble colleagues referred to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who spoke on behalf of the Government at that time. My noble and learned friend said that there will be situations in which special considerations would have to apply to the Anned Forces because of the nature of their work. He added that it would be a matter for the Armed Forces to look at each situation on its merits and ensure that any actions they took were consistent with the convention rights as they would be applied to the particular circumstances of the case.
I was concerned during Second Reading that some noble Lords were perhaps tempted to believe that somehow that represented a kind of green light for the services to stand aside from the convention in the sense of this amendment, and some of the comments at Second Reading. The noble Lord shakes his head; I am happy to leave that point for the moment.
Having dealt with the point of principle, which is laid out in Amendment No. 2, perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 14.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. Before leaving Amendment No. 2, I want to point out that, as regards war under public international law, there is no state of war unless there is a declaration of war with all that that entails. But so many armed activities go on all over the world, and have done so since World War II, which are totally akin to war. The situation is exactly the same, as are the questions of command and discipline, as in an emergency.
Therefore, when the noble Baroness examines the issue with her officials, will she not draw some artificial, legalistic distinction in public international law, but have regard to the practicalities on the ground?
Lord Craig of Radley: Perhaps I may add to that point. Servicemen who in recent years have operated in Kosovo and elsewhere have frequently been "on active service". That is their understanding and l believe that to be the position.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I understand your Lordships' concern that there is no artificially restrictive position over what might be thought of as "a state of war" when we are considering the lives of servicemen who are engaged in active operations where there is an identifiable enemy. I undertake to try to help the Committee a little more on that specific point during the course of today's debate.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 3 to 14. I realise that they are the logical consequence of the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to ensure the effectiveness of the summary discipline procedure in operational circumstances. However, their amendments would insert provisions in the Bill that would allow the commanding officer to
326
hold an individual in custody for an indeterminate period without ever having charged him with an offence. That would be the effect of the amendments.
There is no doubt in my mind that they are clearly and unequivocally incompatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. No derogation from the convention would save them because, as I explained in relation to Amendment No. 2, we would have to demonstrate that we were at war or that the life of the nation was under threat. We should then have to demonstrate that our suspension of the relevant article of the convention was a proportionate reaction in the circumstances.
I appreciate that the purpose of the amendments is benign: to simplify matters for the commanding officer at times when he or she has other pressing preoccupations. However, I believe that we can address the noble Lord's legitimate concern. First, the Bill allows some latitude to extend the time before an individual is brought before a judicial officer, if the 48 hours provision is impracticable. That is proposed in new Section 75C(5) of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and new Section 47D(5) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 as inserted by Clause 1.
Secondly, we in the Ministry of Defence are obviously planning how the provisions of the Bill will be implemented in practice. That is not going on in an abstruse part of the Ministry of Defence where only those who know a great deal about personnel management are to be found. It is being actively pursued by serving Army, Navy and Air Force officers; those who have current experience of dealing with men and women in the field.
The Bill provides for the use of television and other links. The thinking is very much along the lines that such resources will be used to the full, particularly in the types of conditions which are of great concern to the noble Lord and others. But for many, many months, work has been undertaken in the Ministry of Defence on how the practical measures, which we all understand, can be met and how the operational integrity of the Armed Forces can be preserved if the Bill is passed.
I turn to Amendment No. 77 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Like the amendments tabled to Clause 1, the amendment is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government because it would insert provisions in the Bill that would allow the commanding officer to hold an individual in custody for an indeterminate period without ever having charged such an individual with an offence. I do not believe that we would be able to justify such an onerous measure in any circumstances.
When considering these amendments, it is important for us all to remember that concern to make the Armed Forces work as well as they can is not exclusive to your Lordships' House. It is under active consideration in the MoD and by current serving Army officers. Therefore, I say to your Lordships that, while the Armed Forces are determined to make the new procedures work, they are equally determined not to allow operational effectiveness to be jeopardised. Of

327
course that is the case; that is their business. They do not want a discipline system that functions in one way in certain circumstances and in another way in other circumstances. They do not want a discipline that is divisive between those who would be caught by a derogation and those who would not.
We in your Lordships' House often talk about our respect for the brave men and women in our Armed Forces. I believe that we all need to do some joined-up thinking about the issue. We need to consider the import of such amendments on the perceptions of the men and women in our Armed Forces who will be subject to the disciplinary codes. The discipline system must be acceptable not only to the commanding officers but to those under their command. The men and women in our Armed Forces have rights, too, and we must respect the rights of those individuals.
I do not consider that the introduction of measures which would allow indefinite incarceration without charge and without trial is compatible with the kind of disciplinary system we need to see in our Armed Forces as we enter the next millennium.
Lord Renton: In view of the Minister's comments about being subject to the European Convention on Human Rights and having implemented that with the 1998 Act, perhaps I may remind her that, as soon as the then government of this country signed the convention, the people of this country became subject to it and had rights under it. However, they could not enforce them except by going to the European Court of Human Rights. That was why, unlike some of my noble friends, I felt that the Government were fully justified in having the convention enforced by our courts.
If I remember rightly, in 1952 the then government signed the convention. It could be said that all the problems to which the Minister referred have been in existence since then, but that has not stopped one government after another deciding to enact our own law independently of the convention. Given all those years of—if I may use the expression—"co-habitation" between two important matters, are the Government fully justified in now saying that because of the convention there can be no question of Army discipline asserting itself even on active service?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, following my noble friend Lord Renton's intervention, I ask, with respect, whether the Minister could take on board his last question. Furthermore, in relation to Amendment No. 14, the Minister used the phrase, "preservation of operational integrity". Throwing the phrase back, there is no article of the convention, which I have here in my hand—I have been looking through it for about the 50th time—which states that preservation of operational integrity as such, and no more, if it could be justified, would be contrary to the convention.
The vast majority of signatory states to the convention possessed armed forces at the time when it was signed. It was implicit that they should be entitled to maintain discipline in their armed forces and to
328
protect operational integrity. I wonder whether, when the Minister considers the matter with her advisers—I am not pressing her at all for a response today—she could consider looking through the convention. As far as I am concerned, it is common ground between the Minister and myself that Article 15 does not apply in this case. Where is the clear breach of which article of the convention that would arise from preservation of operational integrity?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she indicate whether she is prepared to undertake to look at the issue that I raised about the field general courts-martial? In reply to the debate on the amendment tabled by my noble friend, she said that one could not have one procedure working in one set of circumstances and another procedure in another set of circumstances. With respect, that seems to be what Section 103A provides. If the Minister is right about that, it raises sharply the issue of whether those provisions comply with the convention rights under the Human Rights Act.
I appreciate that the material is complicated and difficult and I do not expect an answer this afternoon, but I hope that the matter will be looked at because it seems to me that the thrust of the Minister's argument in reply to the principle argued by my noble friend is contradicted by existing legislation that she is not seeking to change in the present Bill.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I undertake to look at that matter as the noble and learned Lord has kindly asked me to. This is extremely complex legislation. We are dealing not only with the usual array of magnificent support from the Civil Service and from civil service lawyers, but also of course from the military.
I shall attempt to return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who reminded us that we signed the convention—I believe it was in 1951—and that we have managed to live with it perfectly reasonably without feeling the necessity to legislate in such a way. The amendments are now necessary because of the 1998 legislation, of which your Lordships are well aware, which brought the convention into our domestic courts.
I shall try to expand my explanation to the noble Lord. A failure to make such changes would render the system for service discipline subject to challenge in our domestic courts. The risk of frequent and successful challenges to the system would create an untenable position. That risk would seriously undermine service discipline and would seriously undermine the authority of the commanding officer. Commanding officers would be subject to constant appeals, not only to a military court but also to domestic courts or on judicial review. For that reason, as I indicated in my answer to a point raised earlier by a noble Lord, the chiefs of the armed services are extremely anxious to see this legislation enacted as quickly as possible.
I must confess that I used the terminology "operational integrity" not from the beautifully prepared briefs given to me by the department but as a

329
way of trying to emphasise to your Lordships that the Armed Forces themselves are of course absolutely committed to operational effectiveness. That is what I meant by that phraseology; I was not trying to introduce an entirely new concept. It was only my own way of expressing—rather inelegantly—the issue about which we are all concerned; that is, the way in which we can ensure that individual service men and women are guaranteed their rights under the convention while at the same time ensuring operational effectiveness. That has been the concern of the Ministry of Defence and, indeed, the concern of our colleagues in the Armed Forces, as I am sure all noble Lords would expect it to be.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I do not wish to be accused, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan was in the past, of misquoting the Minister, but she said that officers and men at all levels would do their very best to make the Bill and other legislation relating to discipline work. Of course they do; they are highly disciplined and they will do everything they can to make it work. That does not necessarily mean that they have to like it.
I should like first to speak to my Amendment No. 2, which is an amendment of principle. Article 15 of the European Convention is quite specific about the terms and I accept that, although I must admit that it is a pity that His late Majesty's Government did not implement a degree of derogation as the French did in 1951. But there it is; and we have it. This is a matter of principle. My noble friend Lord Attlee talked about things "going horribly wrong". I use a slightly different phraseology: I shall talk about getting into a very mucky conflict. That being the case, there needs to be some form of derogation in the Bill in principle for matters which corn e under the terms of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I am by no means sold on my wording, but, in withdrawing the amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider all that has been said and will conclude that there is possibly a case for introducing something along those lines at the next stage of the Bill. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ECHR Judgment: Thompson and Venables
Lord Burlison: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables, I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that the discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief
330
comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.
1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, this morning the European Court of Human Rights announced its judgment in the case brought against the UK Government by Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. A copy of the judgment has been placed in the Library. These two youths were responsible for the appalling murder of James Bulger in Liverpool in February 1993. The whole House and the country has the deepest sympathy for James's parents. As Lord Reed, one of the court judges, said,
'The grief of James Bulgers' parents, who took part in the proceedings before the Court, is inexpressible. The fact that [those responsible] … were themselves only ten years old at the time of the murder makes it particularly disturbing'.
"The authority of the European Court of Human Rights derives from our membership of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was established after the war on the initiative of the allies, especially the United Kingdom. It now has 41 nations in membership. The Council of Europe predates the European Union, and is wholly separate from it.
"The European Convention on Human Rights is a convention of the Council of Europe, and the Court of Human Rights is one of its principal institutions. It was British jurists who played a leading role in drafting the convention. The United Kingdom was the first nation to ratify it in 1951. Successive United Kingdom governments ever since have consistently abided by the decisions of the Court, introducing amending legislation where necessary.
"In the case which Robert Thompson and Jon Venables brought before the Strasbourg Court, the two youths essentially argued that facing trial in a Crown Court and having their tariff set by the Home Secretary were inappropriate given their ages. They claimed that these arrangements breached Articles 3, 5, 6 and 14 relating to powers of detention and the right to a fair trial. They were 11 at the time of conviction and are now 17.
"The House will understand that I have had only a short time to read the judgment, but the key findings are as follows. There were no violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Article 3—the right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment—in respect of both trial and sentence. In particular, the Court held as lawful the age of 10 as the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. They were also of the view that the particular features of the trial process did not cause to a significant degree

331
suffering going beyond that which would inevitably have been engendered by any attempt by the authorities to deal with the applicants.
"With regard to Article 5(1)—the right to liberty—the Court held that the sentence of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure was clearly lawful under English law and was not arbitrary. There had not, therefore, been any violation of Article 5(1).
"The Court did find violations in respect of Article 6(1), the right to a fair trial, and under Articles 6(1) and 5(4) relating to the setting of the tariffs and their continued review.
"In relation to Article 6(1), the right to a fair trial, the Court found that, notwithstanding the special arrangements which had been made to help ensure that the youths could properly participate in the trial process in the Crown Court, it was highly unlikely that either applicant would have felt sufficiently uninhibited, in the tense court room and under public scrutiny, to have consulted with their legal representatives during the trial or, indeed, that, given their immaturity and disturbed emotional state, they would have been capable outside the court room of co-operating with their lawyers and giving them information for the purposes of their defence. It followed that the applicants had been denied a fair hearing in breach of Article 6(1).
"With regard to the setting of tariffs and their continued review, the Court first held that there was a fundamental distinction between the sentence for murder in respect of juveniles and that for murder in respect of adults. So far as the latter is concerned—the sentence for adults—in an earlier judgment (Wynne 1994) the European Court had accepted the lawfulness of the mandatory life sentence for adults convicted of murder and the arrangements for tariff-setting by the Secretary of State. Today's judgment does not deal with the arrangements for those adults who have been or will be convicted of murder in the courts of England and Wales. However, in this case involving juveniles, the European Court followed a decision of the House of Lords Judicial Committee that the setting of tariffs for juveniles was itself a sentencing exercise. Since the Home Secretary, who set the applicants' tariffs, was clearly not independent of the Executive, there had been a breach of Article 6(1) in respect of the determination of the applicants' tariffs.
"In relation to Article 5(4), the Court held that because the applicants' tariffs had been decided upon by the Home Secretary, there had been no judicial supervision incorporated in the initial fixing of their sentences. The Court therefore found a violation of Article 5(4), based on the lack of any opportunity for them to have the lawfulness of their detention assessed by a judicial body.
"In summary, the Court has found in favour of the United Kingdom Government on two important issues. Those are that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were never subjected to inhumane
332
or degrading treatment by the Government; and that the sentences imposed by the court were not inconsistent with the requirements of the Convention.
"But it has found against the United Kingdom on issues relating to the trial process: the way in which the tariff linked to their sentence was set; and the failure subsequently to review the tariff.
"This judgment does not overturn the verdict of murder in this case, nor does it in any way exonerate the two youths for their part in this terrible crime. This judgment does not direct their release from custody. The Parole Board remains responsible for deciding release in these cases.
"As with any decision of the Court, Her Majesty's Government accept its judgment. However, in all, the judgment ran to 120 pages. It is important that we proceed as expeditiously as possible but with care. The House will understand that I need to study the detail of what the court has said, and fully to consider its implications. I shall report the outcome of my considerations to Parliament as soon as possible. It will, of course, be for Parliament to agree any change in the legislative framework for dealing with juvenile offenders in these circumstances.
"The appalling murder of James Bulger, a two year-old murdered by two 10 year-olds, profoundly shocked the country and continues to do so. But the real agony is that felt by James's parents. It is they who have endured and will continue to endure the profound grief of losing their son, a fact which nothing can ever repair".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
1.8 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement which his right honourable friend made in another place. I agree entirely with what the Home Secretary said in sympathy to the Bulger family and in horror at the crime which lies behind this. Clearly, like the Home Office, we shall all need time to study this long and complex judgment and its consequences.
In relation to the apparent breach of Article 6(1), it is difficult to see precisely what the court would have thought a fair trial to be in those circumstances in view of what is said about the immaturity and disturbed emotional state of the accused in the trial. In any case, it seems that the verdict of the court in this country has not been called into question.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that he agrees with me that it seems difficult to see that there is quite such a fundamental difference as the European Court suggests between the sentence that someone is detained at Her Majesty's pleasure for juveniles and the life sentence subject to release on licence for adults. Much play was made of that difference which, it seems to me, is difficult to support.
Lastly, as regards the alleged breach of Article 5(4), as I understand it, the Home Secretary did not set a new tariff after the case in the Appellate Committee in

333
1997 at least in part because he was waiting to see what would be said in this judgment. Yet now the judgment states that the lack of the setting of a tariff at that stage was a violation because if the Home Secretary had set a tariff then it would have been subject to judicial review and would therefore have been correct or proper in accordance with the convention in those circumstances.
That rather circular type of argument emphasises the difficulties brought about by the delay involved in very long proceedings and different jurisdictions. That can only add to the distress of the Bulger family and those on that side of the case and can only make it more difficult for the offenders to come to terms with what happened and what they did all those years ago. Such delay, which is involved because of the different jurisdictions, is causing increasing worry in relation to the working of the criminal justice system.
1.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the BBC Ceefax headline read:
"Bulger's killers' trial judged unfair"?
It should be made clear to the man and woman in the street that there is no question that this judgment seeks to overturn the central guilty verdict of the original trial. Therefore, the paragraph in the Statement that the judgment does not overturn the verdict of murder in this case nor in any way exonerate the two youths from their part in this terrible crime is one to make very clear, given the shorthand that our popular press is given to using.
As the Home Secretary said in another place, it was an appalling murder and the grief of James Bulger's parents must be truly inexpressible. I take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, although I do not perhaps follow exactly his logic. I welcome the way in which the European Convention on Human Rights has worked and I am pleased that the Government, with our support, have brought it into the body of British law, which may deal with some of the delays to which the noble Lord. Lord Cope, was pointing.
Although we must undertake a thorough study of the judgment, there are already some clear pointers. The system of trial for children is a difficult one which must be thought through. Taking the politicians out of sentencing is clearly a matter of some urgency. One only has to look at the recent publicity about the politicising of the final decision to hang Ruth Ellis to realise that political judgment and justice do not necessarily go hand in hand. I believe that the court is well-founded in pointing us in that direction.
Therefore, we want a thorough review. But we want also an appropriate consideration in relation to when those two boys should be released. It will be one of the most difficult and testing judgments our system has faced. I suggest that both boys should be subjected to the most thorough psychiatric examination before there is any consideration of their release. I could not go along with what were reported to be the remarks of Sir David Ramsbotham a few weeks ago that we all do things at the age of nine that we subsequently regret. I
334
go back to the true horror of this appalling murder and feel that we must be absolutely certain that those young men are fit to re-enter society. But that must be a proper judgment, free from political interference.
With that, I hope, will go a clear warning to our popular press in particular that cheque-book journalism and muddying the waters while those judgments are made is unacceptable. We should remember that one of the complaints made to the European Court was that the behaviour of the media at the time of the trial made a fair trial almost impossible.
Finally, there is need now—one hopes to God that it is taking place—for the most careful planning between probation, education, social and other services so that when those boys are released, there is the most careful supervision, providing the best possible chance for their rehabilitation. With that, I hope, goes the most serious warning to the press about their behaviour as that process gets under way.
I have every sympathy for Home Office Ministers at this time. This is the most difficult of difficult cases. It tests our system of justice; our capacity truly to rehabilitate. And it tests the responsibility of the press and the strength of the press code. I have a son who is the age that James Bulger would be now. We are all haunted by the video of a little boy being led to his death. What faces us now is how we give justice to him in death and also give some justice to the two boys, with their lives ahead of them, who deprived him of his.
1.18 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, both noble Lords have spoken with considerable wisdom. I, too, am a parent. I, too, have a child of the age that James Bulger would be were he alive today. Like everyone else in the country, I was appalled and horrified by the crime, as I continue to be.
More than anything else, today is a day for reflection, thought and mature consideration. We, as Ministers, and in particular my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, will consider extremely carefully the 120 pages of judgment handed down to us for our consideration.
Your Lordships have asked important questions. They are precisely the questions on which we must focus. I shall try to respond to some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked what changes we intend to make to the whole process. That puts a finger on the key question. We shall have to take very careful account of what was said about the trial process. That was part of the judgment to which it is most important for us to give careful consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked about the difference between the process for dealing with adult and child murderers. In this matter the difference appears to be the indeterminate nature of detention at Her Majesty's pleasure as opposed to the mandatory and determinate life sentence for adult murderers. Clearly, that is a matter we must carefully consider in respect of juveniles.

335
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made a number of important and telling points; not least the way in which these matters are reported. The trial judgment is important here, but the sentence of guilt has gone unquestioned and that has to be absolutely right. There can be no question of that. We need constantly to remind people that our courts have not been seen to fail in that regard. The noble Lord made his familiar points about reporting: the scandal of chequebook journalism and the way in which that can overshadow the importance of a rehabilitative regime for those who are ultimately released following expiry of their sentence.
He made a neat point about politicians and sentencing. In a sense, particularly with juveniles, that comes close to the heart of the some of the issues we will have to unravel and consider in future. Apart from that we need carefully to consider our next moves and take on board carefully the important comments made during the course of considerations here and in another place.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I share the profound sympathy for the parents of a murdered boy and the horror we must all feel at the crime. Is the Minister aware that, according to the best evidence, these two boys have made excellent progress? Sir David Ramsbotham, Chief Inspector of Prisons, whose opinion is about the best we could come across, spoke of one of the two boys. I have very good evidence about the other. Is the Minister aware that they have both made excellent progress?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Earl raises a useful consideration. It may well be the case that they have made good progress. Clearly, that is a matter that the Parole Board will have to consider. No doubt it will be taken carefully into account. However, that does not alter the fact that they were responsible for the appalling murder of a very small child. I do not think that anybody would wish to forget that fact.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, would I be right in assuming that the judgment emanates from a chamber of the Court? If I am right in that assumption, can the Minister tell me the names of the judges involved and the countries they represented?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, I am not able to reel off the names. However, they are all in the judgment which, as I have indicated, will be placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, as noble Lords have said, no one under-estimates the seriousness of the crime. Our sympathy must obviously go to the family. I agree with the Minister that today is a day of reflection and thoughts. However, does he not agree that such thought process should take into account that it is of paramount importance that sentences should be set by judicial process and not by politicians? Does he not
336
also agree that one of the fundamental aspects of the report in which we are found to be at fault is that the process of juvenile justice was not observed in this case? The convention is absolutely clear. Could we have some indication from the Minister that the youth court aspect of justice is important and should be followed in future trials of this nature?
Finally, does the Minister not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that we should have clear criteria to determine how we treat young prisoners when they have shown significant alteration in maturity?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has done no more than reiterate points in the judgment and points I made in response. We need to be clear that the Court did not say that it is inappropriate for these matters to be considered in a Crown Court. It did not make that comment. It did, however, pass comment on the process. Obviously, that is a matter which we shall have to consider further. We must take on board the very real concerns expressed. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised the issue of the way in which people behave while undergoing a sentence of this nature. That will be considered by the Parole Board when it properly comes to consider how and when these two boys might be released.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy to the family which have been appropriately expressed in this House. I do not wish to comment or ask questions on the trial process, which is an important subject. The finding that we have denied two young boys a fair trial means that we must consider the matter in depth.
However, I want to raise questions about the sentencing exercise. Her Majesty's Government will no doubt readily accept that cases involving discretionary life sentences—for instance a sentence imposed on someone who has killed somebody but in doing so was suffering from diminished responsibility; someone who has killed somebody but has done so by reason of provocation; and manslaughter—are often far more serious than the domestic murder case. Her Majesty's Government will no doubt recall that some years ago the Home Secretary had removed from him by process of judicial decision any part for the Home Secretary to play in the sentencing exercise in relation to the discretionary life sentence.
Her Majesty's Government will now have to accept that the sentencing exercise in relation to children who have been detained during Her Majesty's pleasure is equally a case in which a politician has no function to perform.
Finally, Her Majesty's Government will no doubt remember the observation made by the Home Affairs Select Committee about two years ago when it considered the mandatory life sentence. The committee concluded that the mandatory life sentence should stay where it is at present but that the amount of time the defendant should stay in prison was to be the subject matter of a judicial discretion and not a

337
politician's discretion. The committee recommended, therefore, that the Home Secretary ceased to play any part.
In the light of what I have asked the Minister to recall, does he not accept that it is high time that the Home Secretary conceded that in any sentencing exercise he has no part to play and should not strive to act in a judicial capacity? Does he also accept that this is one of the subjects which should receive consideration by Lord Justice Auld who was recently appointed to chair a commission on a wide-ranging series of subjects connected with the criminal trial process?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord speaks with far greater knowledge and wisdom on these matters than I can ever expect to match. We shall obviously take careful account of his comments. Of course we shall wish to consider these matters as carefully and as quickly as we possibly can. No doubt my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will wish to consult with Lord Justice Auld, as has been suggested. But these are complex matters. They require time for reflection. The role of politicians in the setting of sentences is clearly one for debate and further consideration. That is probably the best place to leave the matter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I can raise a practical point. I wish to associate myself with everything that has been said about the crime, about those who committed it and indeed about the parents. But what happens now to the length of time the young men spend in prison? Does the sentence go back to the eight years the trial judge thought was appropriate? Does it revert to the 10 years the Court of Appeal felt was appropriate? Or does it stay at 15 years, which the Court of Human Rights declared to be illegal?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is precisely why we need to study the judgment carefully. Of course the Home Secretary will have to review the matter. That much is clear from what has been said and understood so far from the judgment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, perhaps I can raise a point on the issue of reporting this decision which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Before coming into the Chamber this afternoon I had a look at the tapes. They report one of the solicitors for one of the defendants saying that he was "pleased" with the decision. He went on to say,
"It is a very sad case put I think the decision is correct".
The other solicitor is reported as saying,
"Obviously I am pleased that we have won".
I do not believe that such expressions will strike a chord in any part of the House. In considering the implications of this case, will the Minister be prepared to discuss with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and indeed with his noble and learned friend the Attorney-General who is in his place today, whether some encouragement might be given to the
338
Law Society and other professional organisations which have responsibility for lawyers, to get across the message that, in representing parties in these sensitive proceedings, their job is to represent them in court and not to make statements to the media which may well be selectively quoted from and add insult to injury as far as the relatives of the deceased are concerned?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord makes an important point. Clearly the Government cannot direct lawyers representing their clients as to what they may or may not say. However, I fully sympathise with the point being made. Today is a day for mature reflection. Everything people say publicly about this matter should be carefully thought through. Our thoughts and sympathies should rest with the Bulger family. We, as politicians, need to go away, collect our thoughts, carefully study the judgment and then come back with practical, reasonable and pragmatic solutions for what is clearly a difficult set of issues.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I can ask a question arising from the question put to the Minister by his noble friend Lord Richard. Does he agree that it is important to obtain a clear statement as soon as possible as to what the length of the sentence will now be in relation to these two young men? We cannot leave this matter for months. Which sentence now applies? It may be helpful if a clear statement could be made in that regard soon after the Christmas Recess.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we will want to conclude this matter as quickly as we can. The noble Lord puts his finger back on the precise point raised by my noble friend Lord Richard. It is an issue to which we shall have to return as quickly as we can. It is in no one's interest that these matters are left hanging over.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I want to revert to one of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Ackner. It would appear from the Statement that the European Court of Human Rights has, in effect, made it illegal for any Home Secretary in the future to alter any life sentence tariff recommended by any trial judge whenever the person convicted is under the age of 18. But does the ruling go further than that by effectively outlawing the judicial setting of any tariff where the under-18s are concerned?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, again I need to remind the House that we need time to study this judgment with great care. The point the noble Lord makes is important. But we need time to reflect on the issues raised in the judgment and see properly where our responsibilities lie in the future. We need to be given that time and I am sure that we will come back to the House and provide answers to the questions that have properly been raised during this short debate.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, leaving aside the details of the judgment which we understand the Minister is

339
unwilling to enlarge on at this stage, does a judgment of this sort open the way for the lawyers who acted on behalf of the two young boys in this case to go for large sums of money in compensation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not believe that to be the case. I hope it is not the case in the future. It is certainly not the case in this matter.

Armed Forces Discipline Bill [H.L.]
1.36 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Burlison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 11, after ("except") insert—
("(a) under active service conditions; or (b)").
The noble Lord said: Before we were so rudely interrupted the noble Baroness was discussing the question of "What is war?". I am sure she has taken the opportunity of the period in which the House has been sitting to discover this, as have I. It may be useful, for the benefit of Hansard, that I record what I discovered.
The Geneva Convention of 12th August 1949 and the First Additional Protocol apply. This, we believe will permit derogation under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But if we wish to include non-international armed conflict, we need to add the Additional Protocols of 1977. The first Additional Protocol of 1977 applies to international armed conflict only. The second Additional Protocol applies to non-international armed conflict. Those Additional Protocols have been inserted into the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, Schedules 5 and 6, by the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995.
Perhaps I may return to Amendments Nos. 3 to 14 and 77. I am grateful for the response of the noble Baroness in relation to Amendment No. 2 when I asked for something to be reconsidered. I feel however that she was unnecessarily rude—I mean that in the nicest sense of the word—when she said that she felt we wished to prevent members of the Armed Forces from benefiting from the European Rights Act and international law. That is by no means the case. As I said when I introduced this amendment, we were talking about the practicalities of the case. However, the noble Baroness has thought it proper not to agree with me.
I have no wish to create any conflict at this stage, but I would ask that both the noble Baroness and those responsible with her for framing this Bill should look
340
again at what we have said. They must realise the difficulties involved; that is the problem. It is very easy for people to sit in Whitehall and talk about how legislation is to operate, but when you get into the field it is nothing like so easy. Indeed, that is what we have been trying to emphasise and I do so again. However, in the circumstances, I do not wish to move this amendment, Amendments Nos. 4 to 14 and Amendment No. 77.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
[Amendment Nos. 4 to 14 not moved.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Custody during court-martial proceedings]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 22, line 16, leave out from ("Act") to first ("section") in line 18 and insert ("at any time after the commencement of his trial by court-martial,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 38. The amendments are necessary to overcome potential practical difficulties, which have been identified in the procedure of carrying out custody reviews. These may occur between the appointment of the judge advocate and the commencement of the trial, or in the period between finding and sentence if there is an adjournment. The main effect is to allow any judicial officer to conduct custody reviews up until the date of the trial and during an adjournment.
In the first instance, the appointment to the court of a trial judge advocate may be some time before the trial commences. In the interim, he or she may not be available, perhaps because of officiating at a trial elsewhere. To avoid the practical difficulties that this might create, the amendment ensures that custody reviews may be heard by any judicial officer until the trial actually begins, at which point the judge advocate will take over this role. For example, during an adjournment between finding and sentence, the members of a court may disperse some considerable distance so similar difficulties might arise in that case. Therefore, we believe that it would be more convenient for a judicial officer to have jurisdiction rather than convening the whole court every eight days to review custody.
These are straightforward and practical amendments. The sole basis for them is to ensure that as much flexibility as possible is available to the services in the day-to-day administration of the new system of custody. In addition, to allude to the discussion that Members of the Committee had earlier on Amendment No. 1, I should also like to point out that identical amendments are required to be tabled for each of the three service Acts and that may, possibly, make the changes appear somewhat more numerous than is really the case. Quite a number of amendments have been tabled in my name, all addressing the same issues. However, they are multiplied by a factor of two or, in some cases, a factor of three because of the various discipline Acts with

341
which we have to deal. That applies to the amendments relating to all the clauses and not just those relating to Clause 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment Nos. 16 to 32:
Page 22, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 22.
Page 22, line 24, after ("accused,") insert ("references to a judicial officer").
Page 22, leave out lines 26 and 27.
Page 22, line 32. leave out ("court-martial") and insert ("judicial officer").
Page 22, leave out lines 44 and 45.
Page 23, line 4, leave out from ("Act") to first ("section") in line 6 and insert ("at any time after the commencement of his trial by court-martial,").
Page 23, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 10.
Page 23, line 12, after ("accused,") insert ("references to a judicial officer").
Page 23, leave out lines 14 and 15.
Page 23, line 20, leave out ("court-martial") and insert ("judicial officer").
Page 23, leave out lines 32 and 33.
Page 23, line 37, leave out from ("Act") to first ("section") in line 39 and insert ("at any time after the commencement of his trial by court-martial,").
Page 23, line 42, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 43.
Page 23, line 45, after ("accused,") insert ("references to a judicial officer").
Page 24, leave out lines 1 and 2.
Page 24, line 7, leave out ("court-martial") and insert ("judicial officer").
Page 24, leave out lines 19 and 20.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Release from custody after charge or during proceedings]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 38:
Page 24, line 25, leave out (", judge advocate or court-martial") and insert ("or judge advocate").
Page 24, line 35, leave out (", judge advocate or court-martial") and insert ("or judge advocate").
Page 25, line 4, leave out (", judge advocate or court-martial") and insert ("or judge advocate").
Page 25, line 14, leave out ("judge advocate or court-martial") and insert ("or judge advocate").
Page 25, line 29, leave out (", judge advocate or court-martial") and insert ("or judge advocate").
Page 25, line 39, leave out (", judge advocate or court-martial") and insert ("or judge advocate").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Arrest during proceedings]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 26, line 10, after ("with") insert (", or is awaiting sentence for,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 through to 65. Again, I should like to emphasise that the basis for these amendments is to ensure that as much flexibility as possible is available to the armed services in the day-to-day administration of the provisions contained in the Bill. Indeed, that applies in exactly the same way as applied to the group of amendments that I have just moved and reflects the same argument.
I should also like to remind Members of the Committee that, once again, the number of amendments results from the need to table identical amendments across all three service discipline Acts. As with Clause 4, these amendments devolve responsibility or jurisdiction for certain actions to others to cater for instances where there might be difficulty in contacting an individual at short notice. Therefore, the first change made to Clause 6 is designed to overcome the practical difficulties of directing the arrest of the accused that might exist after finding and at any time when he is awaiting sentence.
As drafted, after finding but before sentence, the courts martial may direct the commanding officer of the accused to give orders for the accused's arrest. However, if the court adjourns for any reason, it may disperse temporarily. Therefore, to avoid the obvious difficulties of recalling all three—or more—members solely to direct arrest if it seems necessary, the amendment vests the power of arrest with the commanding officer for these purposes. I believe that that meets the sort of flexibility that I know is very dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham.
The second change arises from a potential difficulty which may arise if the judge advocate decides to direct the commanding officer to order the accused's arrest. In practice, it is unlikely that the accused's commanding officer would be present at the trial. It may be very difficult to contact him at that particular moment, especially if he is based overseas. Therefore, the amendments widen the provision to give the power of arrest to those who are already empowered under these Acts to arrest someone for committing an offence. This definition includes the commanding officer. The amendment does not allow the power to be exercised other than at the direction of a judge advocate.
Finally, the amendments have been made to ensure that any direction for the arrest of the accused will remain valid, even though the court has subsequently had to be dissolved for whatever reason. The amendments also clarify that the first custody review held after the arrest of the accused shall be dealt with by the judge advocate who gave the original direction. Any subsequent reviews that are necessary may be heard by any judicial officer. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 65:
Page 26, leave out lines 15 to 20 and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (3A) below, subsection (3) below applies between the commencement of the trial of the accused by court-martial and the announcement of the court-martial's finding on the charge or every charge against the accused.").
Page 26, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert (", the judge advocate,").
Page 26, line 26, leave out from ("direct") to end of line 27 and insert ("the arrest of the accused; and any person with power to arrest the accused for an offence against a provision of this Act shall have the same power, exercisable in the same way, to arrest him pursuant to a direction under this subsection.").
Page 26, line 27, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (3) above shall cease to apply (but without prejudice to any direction already given by virtue of that subsection) if the court-martial is dissolved.").
Page 27, line 12, leave out ("or court-martial").
Page 27, line 13, leave out ("ordered") and insert ("made").
Page 27, line 13, leave out from ("before") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("him),").
Page 27, line 15, after ("with") insert ("by him").
Page 27, line 21, after ("with") insert (", or is awaiting sentence for,").
Page 27, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (3A) below, subsection (3) below applies between the commencement of the trial of the accused by court-martial and the announcement of the court-martial's finding on the charge or every charge against the accused.").
Page 27, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert (", the judge advocate,").
Page 27, line 37, leave out from ("direct") to end of line 38 and insert ("the arrest of the accused; and any person with power to arrest the accused for an offence against a provision of this Act shall have the same power, exercisable in the same way, to arrest him pursuant to a direction under this subsection.").
Page 27, line 38, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (3) above shall cease to apply (but without prejudice to any direction already given by virtue of that subsection) if the court-martial is dissolved.").
Page 28, line 21, leave out ("or court-martial").
Page 28, line 22, leave out ("ordered") and insert ("made").
Page 28, line 22, leave out from ("before") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("him),").
Page 28, line 24, after ("with") insert ("by him").
Page 28. line 30, after ("with") insert (", or is awaiting sentence for,").
Page 28, leave out lines 35 to 40 and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (3A) below, subsection (3) below applies between the commencement of the trial of the accused by court-martial and the announcement of the court-martial's finding on the charge or every charge against the accused.").
Page 28, leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert (", the judge advocate,").
Page 28, line 46, leave out from ("direct") to end of line 47 and insert ("the arrest of the accused; and any person with power to arrest the accused for an offence under Part I of this Act shall have the same power, exercisable in the same way, to arrest him pursuant to a direction under this subsection.").
Page 28, line 47, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (3) above shall cease to apply (but without prejudice to any direction already given by virtue of that subsection) if the court-martial is dissolved.").
Page 29, line 29, leave out ("or court-martial").
Page 29, line 30, leave out ("ordered") and insert ("made").
344
Page 29, line 30, leave out from ("before") to ("and") in line 31 and insert ("him),").
Page 29, line 32, after ("with") insert ("by him").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Judicial officers]:
Lord Burnham moved Amendment Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 29, line 36, leave out ("Judge Advocate General") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: This is, in part at least, not so much a probing amendment as a teasing amendment. However, it has a specific and definite purpose which is not part of the teasing. The amendment provides that judicial officers shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by judge advocates. Judge advocates are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. We believe that the Government will agree that it would be more compliant with the convention that judicial officers should be appointed in the same way. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment in that context.
We have to think about the independence of judge advocates. At Second Reading I believe I said that in several cases which have come before the European Court it has been thought that commanding officers are not independent and that therefore the Bill should propose someone who is independent. However, I raised the point that naval advocates are uniformed officers. I cannot see how any normally bone-headed jack tar will notice the difference between his commanding officer, who may be a lieutenant commander, commander or captain, and a judge advocate who is wearing the same uniform and may have roughly the same insignia round his sleeve. It has been made clear that judge advocates are not members of the Armed Forces. However, I believe that we have a serious problem here which I ask the noble Baroness to consider.
My amendment proposes that these appointments should be made by the Lord Chancellor. It is not uncommon for the Lord Chancellor to make judicial appointments and when he does so quite often the salary and fees come out of the relevant departmental budget, especially in relation to tribunal chairmen. I ask the noble Baroness to consider that there is the appearance of a lack of independence. However, I turn to the teasing part of my amendment—although I mean it quite seriously—of which I have given the Minister notice. At Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed grave concern that the whole of this Bill would constitute a considerable disadvantage to the defence budget. I believe that the noble Baroness mentioned a figure of about £6 million; we have mentioned a figure of about £9 million. However, the exact sum does not matter.
I totally agree that it is important that members of the Armed Forces should recognise that they are being fairly treated by the law. Nevertheless, this legislation is to be imposed upon us. As I pointed out in my earlier Starred Question to the noble Baroness, it seems to us that the Armed Forces are in serious financial problems and therefore it seems wrong that the

345
European convention and Home Office legislation should force additional costs upon the Ministry of Defence budget. I ask the noble Baroness to consider those points. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am a trifle worried about this amendment. I have to be frank. I should have thought that the Judge Advocate General would be more appropriate to sift out the qualifications in paragraph (b). I therefore cannot quite understand why he should not be suitable to do that. I have listened with attention to everything that has been said, but I cannot quite understand why the Lord Chancellor should be preferred. That surely cannot have anything much to do with the naval discipline Act.
Lord Bramall: I ask the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, whether the purpose of this amendment is somehow to shift the burden of finance onto the Lord Chancellor. I have much sympathy with that. The noble Lord said that the defence budget was under considerable strain. As I said, I have great sympathy if that is the noble Lord's intention. At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said that,
"the costs will fall to the MoD. However, they will be absorbed across a wide range of budgetary areas, each of which will manage their costs in terms of their overall priorities".—[Official Report, 29/11/99; col. 698.]
She is presumably saying that as these costs emanating from the Bill and the Convention on Human Rights will be obligatory, other things will have to suffer. This seems to be more than sad; indeed I should have thought it was irresponsible. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to comment on the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. It is indeed my primary object not to withdraw this sum of money from the Ministry of Defence budget. At Second Reading I made it clear that I am not entirely happy about the perceived independence of judicial officers and judge advocates. Her Majesty's Government have suffered from the case of Hood v; UK—I am not so certain about Finlay v UK—in which commanding officers were not considered to be independent. A judge advocate is a different being, but bearing in mind that a naval judge advocate sits in uniform I am not happy that his full independence will be universally recognised. However, as the noble and gallant Lord said, my first object is to reduce costs to the Ministry of Defence budget.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although I have immense respect for my noble friend Lord Burnham and all that he is doing on this Bill, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway I am sorry to say that I cannot support the amendment. The difficulty I see is that the Lord Chancellor already has an enormous range of duties. His duties do not extend to having knowledge and experience within the Armed Forces. Often previous Lord Chancellors had served in the forces. Indeed, Lord Chancellors served in each of the two
346
world wars. The judge advocate knows the needs of the relevant service and therefore I believe that he should be appointed. On the other question which has only just been mentioned—I do not think that there is an amendment which affects it—I take the view that the judge advocate should be seen as a service person, although a lawyer—which many lawyers are, or have been—and that he should wear uniform in court. However, my main point is that I think that it is right for the judge advocate to appoint the legal people.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I wish to make a short contribution on one of the issues touched on by my noble friend Lord Burnham; namely, the question of the independence of the judicial officer. I seek from the Minister either today, or later in writing, some indication of the terms of appointment and the security of tenure which such officers would have.
I raise similar questions about judge advocates themselves. I do so in view of a case that I have already mentioned in your Lordships' House—that of Starrs v. the Procurator Fiscal at Linlithgow—where the High Court of the Judiciary held that temporary sheriffs in Scotland—who, until recently, sat in terms of one-year appointments, which were renewable at the discretion of the executive—were deemed not to constitute an independent and impartial tribunal for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the convention.
I understand that it has not yet been decided whether that case is to be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In the event that it was not successfully appealed, it might give rise to questions as to whether judge advocates and judicial officers who hold short-term appointments at the discretion of the Judge Advocate General were sufficiently compliant with Article 6(1) to avoid challenge in courts martial which may take place.
Is the Minister prepared to look at this issue also and to report to those of your Lordships who are taking part in the Bill prior to Report stage?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, told us that this was a probing amendment. I think the term he used was a "teasing" amendment. On the face of it, it is true that these are two rather innocent amendments concerning the responsibility for the appointment of judicial officers who will determine the need for custody prior to trial. In that regard, we would prefer to leave the Bill as drafted.
The Judge Advocate General and the Chief Naval Judge Advocate are responsible for appointing judge advocates to courts martial and, under the proposals of the Bill, to the summary appeal court. There seems little reason in logic for them not also appointing judicial officers to deal with the rather less formal custody hearings.
Incidentally, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Judge Advocate General's office is already staffed and generally funded by the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for kindly indicating to me some days ago

347
that the amendments had a wider purpose. I suspect that this is where the tease comes in. The wider purpose concerns where the costs arising from the implementation of the changes in the Bill will fall.
I recall—the noble Lord reminded us—that this was an issue at Second Reading. We have to remember that most of the costs arising from the Bill, to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred, are associated not with the Judge Advocate General's office but with the need for additional staff in the Ministry of Defence. The major bulk of the costs does not fall in this part of the Bill but elsewhere. Therefore, while teasing us on this point, the noble Lord has not dealt with where the major costs of the Bill fall.
In responding to the kind help offered by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, Ministers in the Ministry of Defence are always extremely grateful for any assistance, from whatever quarter it arises, in identifying others who might be willing to bear the costs of our activities. Any thoughts on that point will, of course, be studied with great verve on our part.
To a certain extent, the amendments imply that the Ministry of Defence does not, or perhaps should not, fully prescribe to the changes arising from the Human Rights Act. The noble Lord said that these changes were being "imposed upon us". Your Lordships should be in no doubt that that is not the case at all. The Act fulfilled the Government's collective commitment in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. In that connection, the Ministry of Defence intends to be part of bringing the convention rights fully into the life of this country. The Ministry of Defence intends to deliver those rights to members of the Armed Forces, who have a right to enjoy them in the same way as other citizens of this country. We shall not deny them the legitimate rights that we are prepared to extend to every other section of the population.
This is an extremely important point. I have a feeling that there is an undercurrent and, given the language used by the noble Lord—"imposed"—the implication is that somehow the Ministry of Defence or the Armed Forces wish to stand aside from this. That is not the case. We are not apologetic about this. We see little mileage in seeking to deflect the costs of the changes in the Bill as if those changes were somehow an alien imposition on the Ministry of Defence.
The services have their own discipline system; we respect it. The services also accept that the costs associated with that discipline system are an integral part of service life; that part and parcel of the acceptance of these changes is accepting the costs that go with them; and it follows that accepting the costs means accepting the modifications to the system.
While I accept the perhaps somewhat light-hearted way in which the noble Lord raised these issues, there is another undercurrent here that we must address. This is not being "imposed"; it is a part not only of what Her Majesty's Government have taken right the way across government, but a part of the acceptance
348
and the implementation of the Human Rights Act, in which the Ministry of Defence wants to play a full and active role.
Lord Burnham: With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness—and this time I do mean it—I do not accept that, had it not been for the Human Rights Act, the Armed Forces would have recommended for inclusion in a Bill all the terms in the Bill that we have before us today. Certainly on these Benches we fully recognise the need to see justice done to all ranks, but, had it not been for the Act, I doubt that this is the way we would have done it.
My purpose in tabling the amendment was twofold. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness fully noted the fact, but for the costs I relied on paragraphs 61 and 62 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. The notes on a great deal of the Bill are extremely helpful, but those two paragraphs do not make absolutely clear what costs arise as a result of the provisions. I do not feel that we should totally withdraw from any attempt to prevent such costs falling on the Ministry of Defence, which is already in a bad way.
As regards the specific part of the amendment, which suggests that judge advocates should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, I shall withdraw that element of the amendment with considerable content in the light of what the noble Baroness said. However, in regard to the matter of costs, I hope that all parties will consider the situation further before we reach the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 29, line 42, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which seeks to ensure that people appointed as judicial officers—however those appointments are made—shall have rather more experience than five years' membership of the Bar or as a solicitor. I speak from personal knowledge. My daughter passed her Bar exams before she was 21, was called to the Bar just after she was 21, and then did a year's pupillage. It was not until she had been in practice for several years that she truly got up to speed. By the age of 26, which is the age envisaged in the Bill, she had not had much experience, although later she gained a great deal.
We must bear in mind that, in the main, judicial officers will be judge advocates, advising the courts on the law and using their own experience within the law in order to be effective. I believe that 10 years' experience is a more appropriate requirement than five years. It is clear from the Explanatory Notes on the Bill that the judicial officers are mostly to be judge advocates, although some of them will act in other capacities. However, we are not told quite in what capacities they will act. I feel strongly that five years' qualification as a lawyer is not long enough, even for

349
those who are only called later. I was not called to the Bar until I was 24. It is better to be safe in this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has explained, this amendment seeks to adjust the minimum qualifications required for judicial officers who are to be appointed to deal with the custody hearings to be established under the Bill. The aim of the clause is to ensure that those appointed have an appropriate level of experience. As the noble Lord pointed out, that is very important. However, we have drafted the clause in such a way as to allow a measure of flexibility to appoint suitably qualified Commonwealth lawyers who could be used, if necessary, in some of the remote locations that we have discussed in the context of the provisions of the Bill. In all cases, we are proposing a period of five years' qualified experience, and it is important to point out to noble Lords that this is the qualifying period required to be appointed as a judge advocate.
The fact is that a 10-year qualifying period would reduce the pool of lawyers from whom judicial officers could be appointed. That, in turn, would reduce our flexibility—the very flexibility that all noble Lords have agreed is so vitally important for the implementation of the measures in the Bill. If passed, the amendment would serve to make the implementation of the provisions of the Bill a great deal more restrictive and make the new procedures more difficult to operate.
While I understand the noble Lord's concern that there should be proper experience—there must be proper experience for the judge advocate—it seems sensible that the minimum qualifying periods are one and the same and that we maintain the flexibility of the provision as drafted.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: Before the noble Baroness leaves this point, perhaps I may ask for clarification. Does the judicial officer appointed under this provision have to be a British national? Can he be a citizen of the European Union or indeed of the United States? I am not clear whether the intention is to restrict the provision in that way.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness answers the noble and gallant Lord's question—my intervention may help her to obtain a fuller answer—will she be so good as to consider whether "barrister or solicitor" in this context means a barrister or solicitor qualified within the United Kingdom or one who has qualified anywhere else in the world? We have to bear in mind that in many countries the profession is not divided into two. Those concerned are just called lawyers. The word "lawyer" has not been used in this provision. Therefore, the interpretation will be strict and the term "barrister or solicitor" will have to be applied.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The eagle eye of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, spotted my anxious look over to the officials' box. I can tell the Committee
350
that Commonwealth lawyers are also qualified in this sense. They might be appointed. On the question of EU lawyers, I shall have to take further advice. I hope to be able to write to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, to answer his point. Similarly, although the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was extremely kind in allowing me the extra time to look anxiously over my shoulder, he was perhaps a little unkind in giving me yet another question that I cannot answer at this stage. I hope the noble Lord will be kind enough to accept a letter on the point that he raised. I shall ensure that copies of those letters go to the Front Benches and to others interested in these issues.
Lord Burnham: Unfortunately, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon is no longer in the Chamber. I am sure that he would wish to ask the noble Baroness to add "Scottish lawyers".
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Lord is kind to raise that point. It gives me the opportunity to put right an earlier omission. I wished to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay—I do it now through the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—that I would write to him on the points that he raised about the terms of appointment and security of tenure of the judge advocates.
Lord Renton: I thank the noble Baroness for her attempted justification of five years. I am still not persuaded that that is long enough. I said that it was a probing amendment. However, I believe that it is a matter deserving of further consideration. I may come back to it at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Custody rules]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 30, leave out lines 32 to 36 and insert—
("(h) the use for the purposes of the proceedings of live television links or similar arrangements, including the use of such a link or other arrangement as a means of satisfying the requirement of section 75C(2)(b), 75F(1) or 75K(6)(b) or (7)(b) of this Act for a person to be brought before a judicial officer or judge advocate;").
Page 31, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert—
("(h) the use for the purposes of the proceedings of live television links or similar arrangements, including the use of such a link or other arrangement as a means of satisfying the requirement of section 47D(2)(b), 47G(1) or 47L(6)(b) or (7)(b) of this Act for a person to be brought before a judicial officer or judge advocate;").
The noble Baroness said: These amendments are straightforward. They are designed to ensure that the practicalities of the system are as simple and as flexible as possible. The amendments clarify two points. First, the rules allowing the use of live television links need

351
not confine that use only to those occasions where an accused must be brought before a judicial officer but may be used for all custody hearings. The second point we wish to clarify is that the arrangements may include live television links and visual transmissions via other media such as the Internet.
At Second Reading I noticed that some noble Lords were sceptical about the practicalities of judicial officers traipsing through the jungle—perhaps the jungle of East Timor or elsewhere—and our assertion that video technology would solve the difficulties.
I hope to offer the Committee some reassurance on that point. I shall refer to the Army in particular, since it is likely to have the greatest number of personnel in remote locations. The Army would seek to use video link technology where operational or training circumstances mean that a face-to-face hearing is not possible within the required time-frame.
It is important to remember that time moves on. The services are fully capable of exploiting successive advances in technology, which they already deploy with great success. Video technology is in day-to-day use. It was in constant use throughout the recent crisis in Kosovo. The armed services see no reason why that technology should not be deployed equally successfully in other operational environments and for purposes such as those envisaged in the Bill.
It must be remembered how much this kind of equipment has changed, even in the past few years. It is highly portable, it is available, and satellite technology should enable its use even in very remote places where standard telephone lines are unavailable. So I hope that we can reassure your Lordships that this is not merely a question of the vague response, "Let us use video because that is the best thing we can say in the context of the Bill". The matter has been very carefully examined by the Ministry of Defence. A great deal of work has been done on it. The available technology is portable, people know how to use it, and it should be able to be deployed—as it was very heavily in Kosovo for other purposes—in situations where it will make life easier for our Armed Forces. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley: For the purpose of clarifying "similar arrangements", can I take it that "live" is the all-important element—that is, it is not so much a question of the technology used, but of the exchange being "live"? Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
I would add, perhaps slightly cynically, that under these provisions a commanding officer can apparently contact a judicial authority by means of a live video link or other arrangement, but the judicial authority will apparently not be able to contact the CO, which I understood to be the purpose of the Minister's earlier amendment to Clause 6.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I assure the noble and gallant Lord that the transmissions would be live. The point is that they should be. There should be a proper interchange, and individuals should be allowed to say their piece to the judicial authorities.
352
On the noble and gallant Lord's second point, the ways in which the transmissions would work are presently being examined. I am not certain about the practicalities of a judge contacting a CO. When the incident occurs, in the first instance it will obviously be a matter of the CO contacting people outside in order to obtain the help that he needs. Others may not know that such help is required. But the return, as it were, of the judicial officer to the CO would, I imagine, be by arrangement. There would naturally have to be proper arrangements in place for those exchanges. They would have to be within certain time limits. If I can give the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, any help on the issues, I shall write to him. However, I hope that I have reassured him on the major point he raised about live exchanges.
Lord Swinfen: Perhaps I may press the noble Baroness a little further. What is the availability of live televisual links at the moment? Are not most of the links just by e-mail, with the messages being typed out and read at either end?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, of course, most of the links are by e-mail at the moment. But we would ensure that video capability was available to all those who might at some point need it, particularly the Army, because it is more likely to be the Army who are in remote places. However, during the recent engagement in Kosovo the video links were a day-to-day occurrence. The equipment needed is highly portable and extremely easy to use. I do not believe that the noble Lord needs to worry about the availability of such equipment. We would ensure that commanding officers have it in the event that they might need it.
I am told that the equipment is in standard use in all theatres of operation. Perhaps that will reassure the noble Lord a little more.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. However, before speaking further at this stage of the Bill, I should remind the Committee that I am a serving TA officer and I have powers of summary jurisdiction which I exercise on behalf of my commanding officer. I may also, from time to time, have to serve as a member of the courts martial.
I have no problem with the Minister's amendment. She gave us some comfort over how the technology could be used for peace-keeping operations. But has she considered how the technology will work for intensive warfare? Has she considered the enemy's electronic warfare effort? Has she considered that, in an operational theatre, it may be operationally necessary to impose what is called "electronic silence"? Has she considered the development of anti-radiation missiles which would home in on any radio transmitter? There is a little comfort from the use of

353
satellites because an anti-radiation missile could possibly result in the premature end of custody reviews by the TV link.
Finally, the Minister mentioned e-mails. I find it interesting that when I wanted to contact her office earlier this week by e-mail I was told that I could not do so because the MoD had a policy of not using e-mails for security reasons. I understand the need for that and I believe the MoD has never been hacked via computers. That indicates some of the problems we have with the modern technology.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On the last point, I believe that the noble Earl will find the same difficulty with communicating through e-mail to some ministerial offices or offices that need a high degree of security. I am sure he will readily acknowledge that the need for proper security for highly classified information in the Ministry of Defence must be our primary concern. But e-mails are used.
I remember referring, during our discussions on the Queen's Speech, to the electronic "blueys" which are the e-mail version of the "blueys", a well-known means of communication with which I am sure the noble Earl is considerably more familiar than I.
The noble Earl asked whether we have thought about the difficulties and constraints imposed on the video linkage during times of real operational conflict. Yes, we have. The use of video linkage in operational circumstances is nowadays an everyday occurrence. I can assure the noble Earl that operational staff in East Timor communicate with the UK by video link on a daily basis now. Video tele-conferencing is also used in Kosovo and was used regularly in Bosnia. All those were conflicts where there was not just a peace-keeping in the sense of people patrolling up and down the streets, but people having a job to do which involved the possibility of real conflict. Video linkages were in use there.
It is important to reiterate that the equipment is now standard issue in all major theatres of operation. When the Army is in theatre the equipment will be available. The equipment is no bigger than a briefcase and works on any commercial digital telephone line or by means of INMARSAT. INMARSAT gives approximately 90 per cent coverage of the globe. It was pointed out curing Second Reading when we dealt with communications that it was possible to fly home from nearly anywhere in the world in 24 hours or less. That must remain part of the communications menu on which we can draw.
In addition, while video-conferencing was fairly common—but not that common—eight or nine years ago when I was actively involved in the Civil Service, in the past three years it has become very much a day-to-day experience not only for civil servants but also for members of our Armed Forces.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 31, leave out lines 15 to 19 and insert—
("(h) the use for the purposes of the proceedings of live television links or similar arrangements, including the use of such a link or other arrangement as a means of satisfying the requirement of section 47D(2)(b), 47G(1) or 47L(6)(b) or (7)(h) of this Act for a person to be brought before a judicial officer or judge advocate;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Bail in proceedings for illegal absence]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 31, line 30, after ("time-) insert ('', and on such terms,").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 71 it may be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 72 to 76 inclusive. These amendments deal with the introduction of bail for a soldier who is illegally absent from duty. During Second Reading, at col. 695 of the Official Report, I said that the House could easily imagine circumstances in which this new right could be deeply damaging to the morale of a unit preparing for operations. I believe it would be helpful to the Committee if I illustrated how that could occur. The Committee needs to understand that a fair proportion of soldiers who are illegally absent have fallen in love with an apparently desirable partner and chosen to ignore their commitments and responsibilities to the Armed Forces, their comrades, the country and Her Majesty.
Consider the hypothetical case of two medical technicians whose duty it is to keep emergency operating theatre equipment in perfect working order. It is obviously a highly specialised activity and there may be only two qualified soldiers in the unit, and perhaps six in the whole of the Army. Suppose that a fictitious Private Good fellow was on operations nine months ago. His wife is now pregnant and her delivery which is expected soon is likely to be a difficult one. Private Good fellow is due to fly out on operations the next day because one of the other medical technicians already in theatre has been taken ill. It is therefore operationally essential that he is deployed immediately.
Suppose, further, that nine months ago when Private Good fellow was last on operations Private Badjob was sick with a bad back but well enough to fall in love with the lady of his dreams. He has now crashed his car while taking his new girlfriend to hospital for the delivery of his child. The police discover that he is illegally absent from the Army and he is taken before the magistrate. Presumably, the magistrate will apply the same tests as under the Bail Act, which I believe is the intention of the Minister. If Private Badjob can show that he is genuinely in love with his new girlfriend, and that he has a stable relationship with her, he could easily demonstrate to the Bench that he is unlikely to abscond while his

355
girlfriend is in labour. If the service authorities cannot arrange to take him into service custody immediately, the magistrate is likely to have to grant him bail.
We would then have the manifestly unfair situation where Private Good fellow has to leave his wife on her own to face a difficult delivery because Private Badjob is illegally absent, possibly a deserter. On the other hand, Private Badjob can attend his girlfriend's delivery.
During discussion on a previous amendment, when talking about the system of discipline, the Minister said that it had to be acceptable to all those under command. The Committee may like to reflect on how the hypothetical Private Goodfellow will feel about his situation. Can the Minister say whether I have interpreted the Bill correctly? Is my hypothetical situation possible? If it is not, in what circumstances does the Minister believe that it would be necessary or desirable for the magistrate to grant bail?
In this context it is worth remembering that the civil authorities are not notified of illegal absences for two to three weeks after they have been detected by the military authorities. So when a soldier appears before a magistrate, he is already in deep trouble. If a soldier has been absent for, let us say, two months he is probably looking at a period of detention; but all periods of detention are netted off from the eventual sentence.
Cases of absence without leave are easy to prove using documentary evidence. Mistakes, therefore, are unlikely to occur. By "mistakes" I mean that a soldier is unlikely to be detained and not then acquitted during proceedings. Desertion, a more serious charge, is a little more difficult to prove. My amendment may not be perfectly drafted. However, it gives the Minister an opportunity to respond to my concerns. I beg to move.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As the noble Earl says, this clause deals with deserters and absentees who are taken by the civilian police before civilian magistrates. It provides that a magistrate may remand the individual,
"for such time as appears reasonably necessary for the purpose of arranging for him to be delivered into military [air force or naval] custody".
Remand may implicitly be into custody or bail. The power to remand a person on bail is contained in Section 128 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and bail is defined as having the same meaning as in the Bail Act 1976.
The intention of the first amendment is to provide for conditions to be imposed on an individual if he is remanded on bail. As a civilian magistrate may impose bail conditions under the Bail Act 1976 which would apply in the circumstances, we do not think that the amendment is needed. Moreover, we believe that the effect is to narrow the purpose for which bail conditions may be imposed. The noble Earl's amendment might be positively unhelpful.
356
The aim of the second amendment appears to be to place a greater responsibility on the magistrate to ensure that the accused is delivered into service custody. We believe that the wording we already have is more appropriate than that put forward by the noble Earl.
The purpose of the noble Earl's amendment is to provide that the magistrate ensures that those individuals absent without leave who find themselves before him do not disappear again into the ether. That is a sentiment with which the MoD, and the Armed Services in particular, naturally agrees, but we believe that the clauses as drafted allow the magistrate to impose whatever bail conditions he deems necessary in order to ensure that the accused can be safely delivered into service custody.
We do not believe that the amendments provide for anything more than what is already in the Bill. I understand that the noble Earl has tabled the amendment entirely benignly. However, we believe that the wording of the Bill is more effective than that which he proposes. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burnham: The Minister says that the wording of the Bill is better than that proposed by my noble friend in Amendment No. 72. However, does she not agree that it is desirable to place an additional duty on a lay magistrate by providing that he must "ensure" that someone is delivered into military custody rather than merely "arrange" for that to be done? I have acted as an escort in such cases and I should have been happier to know that the magistrate had ensured that the man was turned over to me.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We can argue about the precise impact of "arranging" or "ensuring" that an individual is handed over. It seems to me that there is not a hair's breadth between us. If one is "arranging" to do something one is putting into place the necessary arrangements, thereby ensuring that they exist. To me, the word "ensuring" implies that one is "arranging". I honestly believe that the noble Lord is trying to see a distinction where none exists.
Lord Burnham: I do not believe so. "Ensuring" means that the magistrate is responsible, but "arranging" means that he probably tells Group 4 to do it.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am bound to say that in "ensuring" he will probably tell someone else to do it—he is hardly going to do it himself. It is the magistrate's responsibility, as is effecting the arrangements. There may be a real difference between the noble Lord and myself, but I do not believe that it is substantial. Therefore, I hope that on reflection he will see that the responsibility placed upon the magistrate will be the same, whether one uses the word "arrange" or the word "ensure".
Earl Attlee: All the amendments I am moving today are probing. I must accept the fact that my speech may

357
not have been well linked to the amendment before us, but the Minister did not say whether my scenario was far-fetched or whether it was a possibility. Can she comment on that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I can. As with all hypothetical examples, it is theoretically possible, but it leaves out consideration of the wider context. Under the current system, we could well let Private Badjob be with his wife, girlfriend, or whoever, at her time of need. The Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces are not vindictive. All justice systems seek to be as fair as possible by taking the wider picture into account.
Theoretically, yes, the hypothesis which the noble Earl asked us to consider is possible, but it must be put into the wider context of dealing with these issues as sensibly as possible and, while not in any way undermining discipline, recognising that compassion is an important part of that.
Earl Attlee: Of course I fully agree that compassion is an essential component of discipline. I thank the Minister for her comments and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 72 to 76 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Right to elect court-martial trial]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 32, line 23. leave out ("Before") and insert ("After").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 79 to 85.
My amendment seeks to reverse the effect of Clause 11. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has a slightly different approach to the same problem, as he will oppose the Question that Clause 11 stand part of the Bill. I do not understand why the accused will be in a better and fairer position if he is able to elect to go for courts martial earlier, especially as he will now have the opportunity to appeal to a compliant court after summary jurisdiction. That is provided for under later clauses of the Bill.
At Second Reading I explained how it might well be disadvantageous for the accused to elect for courts martial when he was unaware that the commanding officer was minded to dismiss the charges. The CO will never prejudice his position by giving any indication, however informal, that he is minded to dismiss any charges.
The ability of the accused to elect for courts martial is necessary in order to give the accused some protection against what I should call a "stitch-up". The problem is that the changes proposed by the Government do absolutely nothing to address that problem. I apologise to the Committee for not having tabled a suitable amendment to deal with the very real problem of the accused being put under unfair pressure to withdraw his election for courts martial. At a later stage I shall table an amendment to limit who can counsel the accused to withdraw his election for courts martial, but I do not expect the Minister to comment at this point.
The Minister will no doubt pray in aid Clause 12 which limits the courts martial to the powers which the CO would have had if the accused had not elected for courts martial. However, the Committee needs to understand that the CO's powers are extensive. For a minor case, the courts martial could apply a much more severe penalty than the CO would have applied. The CO will of course know the accused well and he can take all the factors into consideration when determining sentence. On the other hand, members of the courts martial must not have any knowledge of the accused. Furthermore, they are also well used to hearing well-constructed pleas of mitigation. Indeed, they will have heard it all before.
Will the Minister confirm that I am right in believing that members of a courts martial may knowingly apply a more severe sentence than they believe the CO would have applied, although obviously not one outside the CO's powers under summary jurisdiction? Am I right in believing that the members of a courts martial will not have to put themselves in the mind of the CO and instead they may come to their own decision based upon the evidence before them? Furthermore, am I right in believing that the courts martial may take into consideration the probability that the soldier has elected for courts martial despite it being a minor case? I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Bramall: This is a crucial amendment. It impinges upon the whole question of appeal against a summary sentence of the commanding officer and it will of course be dealt with by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver when he moves his amendment to resist the whole of Clause 11.
My own view is that the forces probably could live with the soldier making a choice as to whether to be tried by courts martial or summarily before he is even arraigned before his commanding officer. In most cases, I believe that service people would choose to go before the commanding officer. In the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness quoted some statistics to support that. Quite apart from the uncertainty and the deferment of justice in general, it seems utterly senseless and over-ponderous for a soldier to be forced to make that decision before the evidence has even been heard and when, as a result of that evidence, he may be about to be acquitted or even given the most

359
minor punishment. Therefore, I shall withhold judgment on the amendment until I have heard the arguments put forward by my noble and gallant friend.
Lord Burnham: Perhaps I may raise one small point in relation to this issue. What will happen if two or more persons are accused of similar offences and one agrees to go for summary trial and the other wishes to go to court martial? No doubt the noble Baroness will say that the same will apply if it happens at a later stage. But because it is at a later stage in the procedure, the chances of it happening are reduced.
Lord Lea of Crondall: It is helpful to have heard the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, clarify this afternoon that he does not feel that there would be a widespread preference for a courts martial as against having one's case dealt with by the commanding officer. I believe that one of the central concerns expressed in the Second Reading debate was that the Bill taken as a whole, and particularly this section, would undermine the authority of commanding officers. With my limited experience of those matters, I should have thought it extremely unlikely that many people would opt for a courts martial when they will continue to serve in a particular unit.
However, has the Ministry of Defence been able to obtain any feedback on this very point from different levels in the armed services? If so, has such feedback shown that, given this clause, a large number of people would opt for courts martial? I should have thought that that was unlikely and, in so far as there seems to be a conflict of evidence on this point at the moment, I suggest that in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, which will obviously take some weeks and months, it would be desirable that surveys be carried out at different levels in the Armed Forces as to what people believe would happen. I do not believe that there is a difference of opinion in the House that the authority of the commanding officer should not be undermined.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It was useful to the Committee that, in putting forward his amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, quite clearly indicated, as, indeed, do the amendments, that his intention is to reverse the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, we are in no doubt as to what he is trying to do, even though he is doing it by a different method. I believe that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was also helpful. Inasmuch as I have been able to hear comments from members of the armed services on the matter, my impression is that they do not expect there to be many applications for courts martial, particularly on minor charges.
However, situations could arise in which a soldier might prefer to be tried away from the atmosphere of his or her own unit because it was the circumstances surrounding the person in that unit which are the main cause of his difficulties. Therefore, I can see that even those who are involved in minor cases might occasionally wish to seek a courts martial. I have also
360
come across an officer, who, as a commanding officer, felt embarrassed that he was not able to offer a courts martial under existing law and felt obliged to act in a way which he felt was not satisfactory from the point of view of natural justice.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Clause 11 inserts a new section into both the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 to alter the process of electing trial by court martial.
The availability of a right to choose to be tried by court martial instead of being dealt with summarily is long established. The right to make that choice was extended by the Armed Forces Act 1996 so that it became available to all individuals facing summary proceedings in the Army and Royal Air Force. In the Royal Navy it was accepted that that change should not be made because of the need to be able to deal quickly with minor disciplinary problems at sea. Nevertheless, in the Royal Navy, there is a right to elect trial by court martial for the more serious offences capable of being dealt with summarily.
The right to elect trial by court martial was extended in the 1996 Act because of concerns that summary proceedings on their own might not be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The point at issue here is the independence and impartiality of the commanding officer. It was considered that offering a wider right to trial by a court complying with the convention—a court martial—would meet such concerns.
As the Committee will know, the Bill proposes to establish a summary appeal court. Apart from what the Government see as the intrinsic fairness of providing a proper mechanism for appealing against any summary findings, that new procedure is necessary to put beyond doubt the question of compatibility with the convention.
However, we do not wish there to be any confusion between the new right of appeal and the existing right to elect trial by court martial. We believe that there could be such confusion if we leave the procedures for electing trial by court martial as they are. That would be part of the effect of the amendments which we are discussing.
That is because in the Army and Royal Air Force the accused is not given the right to elect for trial by court-martial until after the commanding officer has found the charge proved. As I said on Second Reading, that procedure may be considered to have some of the characteristics of an appeal. The other effect of the amendments is to formalise that. The election for trial by court-martial after the commanding officer has indicated his finding but prior to sentence will be an appeal if this amendment is accepted.
It might be said that the amendments illustrate perfectly the confusion between the present arrangements and an appeal. Indeed, I should tell the Committee that when I started to deal with this issue, I was extremely confused about this point. I hope that I am not now. But I believe that it is open to confusion.

361
On the other hand, Clause 11 as drafted means that the commanding officer will give the accused the right to elect trial by court martial prior to the commencement of any summary dealings. That will bring the Army and the Royal Air Force into line in that respect with the procedure which already operates in the Royal Navy, where the accused has the right to elect trial by court martial at the beginning of the summary process. Therefore, there is no need to change that aspect of the system.
We believe that it is important that our proposal should be left as it is. It will enable the accused to elect to be dealt with by a compliant court from the outset. In the context of the convention, we believe it is necessary that the right to elect from the outset is established.
Another flaw in the amendments is that the right to appeal will be exercised at a point when the accused knows only part of his fate. He will be appealing against the finding alone. He will not know, when initiating the appeal, whether the commanding officer is considering a custodial sentence, a fine or a lesser punishment. That does not seem to us to be a very informed basis for launching an appeal. Nor do we agree that that proposal would sustain the authority of the commanding officer in a way that our Clause 11 would not.
My noble friend Lord Lea asked what evidence there is of how individuals might opt for the courts martial alternative. Only experience will show how the new procedures operate in practice. However, we can draw on our knowledge of how the procedures relating to the point at which an individual may elect trial by court martial already operate in the Royal Navy. We can also draw on what has happened since the right to elect trial by court martial was established universally in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force in 1997.
The fact is that the change simply has not produced an avalanche of courts martial. Although we cannot know for certain, such evidence as we have, which I suggest to your Lordships is reasonably convincing, would seem to indicate that a huge number of courts martial will not be forthcoming.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked if a court martial can knowingly apply a more severe sentence than they think the commanding officer might have applied. Yes, that is possible but there is no intention to do so deliberately. As I am sure the noble Earl is aware, both the commanding officer and the court martial have a range of identical sentences available to them. The court martial would not attempt to second-guess commanding officers. As I am sure the noble Earl would expect me to say, members would be expected to use their experience and judgment when reaching their verdicts.
Once they have been introduced, we will monitor closely the new proceedings. If it becomes clear that there is need for modification we shall consider, as indeed we always can, what options are available to us for remedial action.
362
Perhaps I may stress to your Lordships that the proposals in the Bill have not been drawn up by one or two liberal lawyers sitting in a darkened room somewhere within the MoD trying to think of the best way to plug every possible gap. They have been drawn up with the active involvement of the services with a view to ensuring that they work. They have to work and be practical and flexible. They must not undermine discipline or impede the maintenance of operational effectiveness. Who can give us the best possible advice on that?—those who see active service, who come in and out of my office and other ministerial offices and who, I am sure, have given us as good advice on this issue as they do on so many others.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the Minister's response. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, suggested that the services could live with it. He is probably right about that. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, talked about research on the number of court martial events. One of the difficulties we have on these Benches is that we did not have an awful lot of time to table parliamentary Questions to find out how many courts martial have taken place, how many people have been acquitted and how many people have elected for court martial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, agreed with me that undue pressure could be applied and I will definitely come back on that with a suitable amendment. I agree with her comment in relation to the 1996 Act, which was a very desirable Act.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl when he is winding up, but for the purposes of clarity perhaps I should say that my remarks were directed towards making the assertion that some soldiers might elect courts martial on a minor offence if they felt that the circumstances surrounding them in that unit were unfavourable to having a fair decision made by the commanding officer. That was the purpose of my remarks.
Earl Attlee: I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I found the arguments of the Minister very attractive. She said that electing for courts martial after the commanding officer had heard the evidence would amount to an appeal. I will read carefully what she said. I intend to come back at Report with suitable amendments to deal with the problems of unfair pressure being applied. I may return to this issue, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 to 85 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Right to elect court-martial trial]:
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carver: In speaking to this clause, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Clauses 14 to 25. In opposing that these clauses should stand part of the

363
Bill, my target is the summary appeal court. It would be established by Clauses 14 to 25, but Clause 11 is directly relevant to it.
In the debate on Second Reading my noble and gallant friends and I and other noble Lords made it clear that of all the proposals in this Bill, that was the one which most seriously tended to undermine the position of the commanding officer as the fount of authority and justice in the unit. It would mean that a serviceman, having elected to be tried by his commanding officer, having been found guilty and awarded a punishment by him, could then say, "I do not like that. I shall appeal to the summary appeal court". That would not only be a direct blow to the commanding officer's authority, but also involve delay as well as bureaucratic effort and expense.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in the Second Reading debate rightly emphasised the importance to discipline, and to the efficiency of the unit, of justice being swift. Why, therefore, have the Government proposed this provision? It derives from the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting Article 6 of the Convention, which deals with the right to fair trial, where it establishes the right to,
"a fair and public hearing [by] an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
In the case of Lance-Sergeant Findlay they ruled that a courts martial convened and presided over by a higher military authority was not "independent and impartial". That led to the changes to courts martial brought about by the Armed Forces Act 1966.
The Government appear to fear that in the case of a commanding officer's summary jurisdiction, our own courts, in interpreting the Human Rights Act, would take the same view or, if they did not, that an appeal from them to Strasbourg would do so; that they would rule that a serviceman must be able to elect trial by courts martial before his commanding officer starts summary proceedings; and that if he does not, and chooses summary trial, and the CO finds him guilty and sentences him to some punishment, the man must have an avenue of appeal.
I believe that the Ministry of Defence's legal advisers are taking too pessimistic a view of the likelihood of that. It is certainly at variance with the advice tendered by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when the Human Rights Bill was being discussed in this House. He described the convention as a "flexible instrument" and played down the fears expressed by some noble Lords that its incorporation into our domestic law could have serious implications for the disciplinary codes of the service.
I contend that the present system under the Army and Air Force Acts is perfectly fair and can be defended in the courts as consistent with the convention. The case against a soldier or airman, and the man's own explanation in his defence, are heard by the commanding officer. The latter either dismisses the charge or decides that the accused is guilty. If the latter, he offers him the choice between being tried by courts martial or accepting the commanding officer's
364
award of sentence. If he accepts that award, how can he claim that he has not had a fair trial? If he elects trial by courts martial, then how can he claim it? Therefore, if the summary procedure under the Army and Air Force Acts is not changed by Clause 11, I contend that there is no need for a summary appeal court and that, consequently, Clauses 14 to 25 would be redundant.
The Minister cited the case of the Royal Navy. Under the Naval Discipline Act, a sailor has the right to elect courts martial before summary proceedings begin. If he chooses trial by commanding officer, I understand that he then has no right of appeal against the latter's finding or award. If that is the case, and if the Government believe that he ought to have, my answer is that the Navy should be given the choice of either coming into line with the Army and Air Force or, if they cannot bear the thought of that, of having a summary appeal of their own. After all, they have their own Judge-Advocate.
I appeal to the Minister to go back to her legal advisers and ask them to consider whether they are being too cautious and pessimistic. Perhaps she might talk to her noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and ask him to persuade them to come round to the views that he expressed when the Human Rights Act was being discussed in this House.
Lord Craig of Radley: I put my name down to speak on the Question that Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill because, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, I feel that this particular clause is misplaced. I do not wish to detain Members of the Committee for long. I have but three brief points to add to the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord.
First, I believe that this approach tends to undermine the importance of courts martial in the overall spread of legal arrangements that the services have. Historically, a courts martial is seen as a much more important court than any form of summary jurisdiction. I do not like to see a courts martial being placed in the position of having no greater tariff at its disposal than a lower summary court.
Secondly, as the noble and gallant Lord said, I believe that the position of the commanding officer is inevitably undermined by this approach. We have a responsibility to do all that we possibly can to sustain the authority of the commanding officer, for all the very good and many reasons that have been brought to the attention of noble Lords during the course of the Second Reading debate and, again, this afternoon.
Thirdly, I, too, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, return to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when we debated the Human Rights Bill. He said that there was flexibility in the human rights convention and that it posed no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. I believe that there is a potential threat here. Indeed, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, suggested, I think it would be a great help if the advisers of the Ministry of Defence were to approach the Lord Chancellor's office to see whether we can gain some flexibility in the direction that would help the authority of the commanding officer.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bramall: Before I support my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver on this measure I shall try once again to dispel a second misapprehension; namely, that noble and gallant Lords and other noble Lords who criticise this Bill somehow belong to a dying breed who hark back to the days of iron discipline and fierce regulations all designed to inculcate a greater fear than the enemy could possibly achieve, and that somehow we find it difficult to adapt to the development of man management and the greater sensitivities of the modern soldier. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, harbours such dark thoughts.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. Let me quickly—even if constitutes a short digression—read something that was written about one of the battalions of my regiment,
"I have the pleasure to observe this regiment possesses an excellent spirit and tin t both officers and men take a pride in doing their duty. Their movement in the field is perfect; it is evident that not only officers but each individual soldier knows perfectly what he has to do: the discipline is carried on without severity; the officers are attached to the men, the men to the officers".
In case noble Lords think that I am directly or indirectly blowing my own trumpet, I point out that that was written in Sicily in 1806 by the great British general, Sir John Moore, about a battalion of the 52nd Light Infantry, later the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, now part of my own regiment, the Royal Greenjackets.
Since that day that regiment, with its rifle and light division traditions, and a number of like minded regiments and corps, have, as well as taking pride in their fighting qualities and professional skill—because that is what the Armed Forces are there for—kept and sought to develop those standards of intelligent and humane discipline, sympathy and understanding between all ranks and concern for the individual, his welfare and that of his dependants. With, of course, different emphasis, different styles and traditions, each with their own strength, these standards, certainly since World War Two, have been developed and are inculcated at Sandhurst and other establishments and are generally standard practice throughout the British Army and, I have no doubt, throughout the other services also.
I hope that the impression will not be given that these officials and law officers meeting in well lit rooms in the Ministry of Defence and with balanced ideas have some sort of monopoly of what constitutes justice and disciplinary values in a modern military society. I believe that the kind of background I have described is the right kind of background against which sensible, essential discipline, without which fighting men become a collection of unhappy, frightened individuals, should be considered as opposed to too legalistic arguments.
Of course I accept that none of that gets away from the Government's real need to make arrest and trial procedures in the services compatible with what will soon be British law. But the point that my noble and gallant friends have made, and with which I entirely
366
agree, is that more is being put into this Bill than is strictly necessary for compliance. Indeed even the Minister, when discussing the right of appeal against a summary sentence, said only,
"that to continue with the present arrangements may not he compatible with the convention".
I am sure that her words were carefully considered. She continued,
"and would allow the possibility"—
not the probability—
"of a challenge to the powers of the commanding officer".
Many of us think that if necessary this should be tested because if, as I said in the Second Reading debate and my noble and gallant friends have said, a soldier can have free and direct access to a European Convention on Human Rights compliant court—that is, a courts martial, with its own right of appeal—the right of appeal against the commanding officer's summary sentence to a special court would seem to be superfluous.
Perhaps the forces could live—as I said before—with this business of electing trial from the outset, but, as my noble and gallant friend has pointed out, how much better the present system whereby before passing sentence the accused is asked whether he will accept the award or prefer to be tried by courts martial. This would greatly speed up justice and of course, as has been said in another context, justice delayed is justice denied. It would remove that uncertainty—one of the fundamental principles of discipline is that it should be consistent and well understood as well as fair—and it would not undermine the all-important authority of the commanding officer, on whom everything depends in terms of morale and performance. It would, of course, make Clauses 11 and 14 to 25 unnecessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have put my name to the amendment because I was present at Second Reading and I defer to the views of the noble and gallant Lords who spoke then, and to all other noble Lords who spoke in favour of the proposition. It was a body of opinion which no Government could possibly put aside and ignore. I defer to the speeches of the three noble and gallant Lords. It is a privilege to follow them and I shall be brief.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, put the matter very clearly: there is much provision in the Bill which is unnecessary. To put the proposition round the other way, as I was trying to do earlier; which precise articles of the convention does the existing regime—the discipline Acts—breach? It is the same problem.
One hopes that we can return to this issue on Report—we should not divide today—but the essential argument, briefly, can be put in an analysis. As part of the proposed appellate procedure under Clauses 14 to 25, Clause 11 imports the right of election to trial by courts martial before there are summary proceedings. Therefore, in speaking against Clause 11 stand part, it is logical—certainly at Committee stage—to speak to Clauses 14 to 25 not standing part.

367
Why should they not stand part? Essentially the three reasons that have been given are, first, that they erode the status and authority of the commanding officer; secondly, that they are unworkable in practice. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, it is no good saying, "This is workable; it is designed to be workable. We have sorted this out with people; they all think that it is workable". The noble and gallant Lords have, on two occasions, assured the House that it is not workable. My noble friend Lord Vivian, my noble friend Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who spoke at Second Reading, have all said that, in practice, this is not workable. I have already drawn to your Lordships' attention the difficulty of seeking to make any effective distinction between war as war and warlike activities in which the Government's proposals would be unworkable.
The third reason is that the clauses are not necessary. I shall listen to the answer to that question with great care. They are not necessary because the existing regime does not breach certain provisions of the identifiable articles of the convention.
When the convention was ratified, no thought was given to the effect upon military discipline of any article in this treaty. If you read through the convention, none will be found. Furthermore, it was wholly implicit that the rights and freedoms conferred on civilians would suffer limitations when applied to discipline in the Armed Forces. The basic concept of the convention seems to have been wholly ignored by the Government. Rolv Rysdal, who served for so long and with such distinction as a judge in the Court of Justice, pointed out that the convention was not intended to impose rigid, uniform solutions.
There is no binding system of judicial precedent. Instead, there is a system of overriding flexibility in which each case is decided on its own facts and merits. That is all relevant to the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and made by myself in another form; namely, is this necessary from the point of view of compliance with the convention?
The question arises on a subsequent amendment. If an amendment to set up a courts martial appeal court is passed, it could then be ever said that the scheme as proposed—namely, retention of the scheme we already have with that amendment and that appeal court—could conceivably breach the convention, because we have our own domestic appellate forum.
If the amendment were to be accepted, not only would there be no need for Clause 11 to stand part, there would also be no need for Clauses 14 to 25 to stand part. The Bill before us takes a wholly different approach to the option which commended itself to the Government. But that option has been foreclosed. Is there not a heavy burden of justification to be discharged before Clause 11 or Clauses 14 to 25 shall stand part?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend it falls to me, first, to
368
reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that my noble friend does not harbour dark thoughts about anyone. It is not in his nature to do so.
Secondly, as a layman—perhaps I may say how much I miss the presence of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill in this matter—I believe that a basic principle lies behind the Bill; namely, that members of the armed services are citizens—indeed, they are humans because the convention refers to human rights—and, as far as possible, they should enjoy the same rights as everyone else. I take that to be the foundation of the Bill. Earlier on in today's proceedings, the Minister made a declaration to that effect. We were not able to respond at that time so I am taking this opportunity to say that we agree with the general purpose of the Bill and will support the Government in retaining the clauses which the noble and gallant Lords wish to remove from the Bill.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, seeks to exclude from the Bill Clause 11, which is the clause dealing with the right to elect for courts martial. The noble and gallant Lord reminded us of the exchanges in your Lordships' House on the Human Rights Bill. When that Bill was debated in the House, the Lord Chancellor indicated the Government's willingness to consider designating military courts as the proper venue for consideration of complaints on convention grounds by members of the Armed Forces. That possibility was given careful consideration in full consultation with the three services. However, it was decided that using courts martial to hear purely convention points would be inappropriate. Courts martial are not standing courts. They would have to be convened on an ad hoc basis to hear criminal charges.
My noble and learned friend also said that there would be situations in which special considerations would certainly have to apply to the Armed Forces because of the nature of their work. My noble and learned friend added that it would be a matter for the Armed Forces to look at each situation on its merits and to ensure that any actions they took were consistent with the convention rights as they will be applied to the particular circumstances of the case.
There has been an implication, at least from some Members of the Committee, of inconsistency with regard to what my noble and learned friend said at that time and what we are proposing in the Bill. I believe that there is no such inconsistency. My noble and learned friend said that the situation would be looked at on its merits, but he also stressed the importance of compliance with the convention. The Bill is tailored precisely to meet the needs of the Armed Forces. I believe that what my noble and learned friend said at that time is on all fours with what the Bill says now.
Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. His point can be summed up very succinctly as: is any of this really necessary? The Ministry of Defence has been in touch with the Lord Chancellor's office over a number of

369
months and has discussed the issue as part of our collective consideration of the Bill across government. The view taken by the Lord Chancellor's office and by the Ministry of Defence is that the current summary justice system on its own is not compliant with the convention and that the right to elect for a courts martial from the outset and the establishment of a summary appeal court will make the disciplinary system in our Armed Forces compliant. It is taking those two elements together that makes it compliant. That is why the legislation is necessary.
Our noble and gallant colleagues have said that Clause 11 and indeed the other clauses to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred undermine the authority of the commanding officer. The noble and gallant Lords brought that theme before your Lordships at Second Reading and they have been remarkably consistent in doing so again today. But these proposals have not sprung up overnight in some dark room in the MoD. They have been developed with those who currently serve in the services, specifically, intentionally and deliberately to preserve the balance between the imperative of upholding authority in the Armed Forces and the rights of individuals. They are intended to preserve that all-important balance.
The proposal that service personnel can appeal against the decision of a commanding officer is not very different in principle from the option given to an accused to elect for trial by courts martial once he has heard his commanding officer's decision. It could be said that that is no less of a second bite at the cherry. However, none of the changes to the courts martial system implemented by the Armed Forces Act 1996 has had any adverse effect whatever on the authority of commanding officers.
We do not expect a right of appeal to lead to cases challenging the decision of a commanding officer. Initially, of course, there may be quite a few such cases. Over time, the number of appeals will no doubt be influenced by a number of factors, including, naturally, the success rate of those appeals.
We need to consider what would happen if we did not make these changes. Failure to do so would render the system for service discipline vulnerable to challenge in our domestic courts. The risk of frequent and successful challenges to the system would create an untenable position. That would undermine service discipline and the authority of the commanding officer. The commanding officer's judgments would be subject to constant appeal in the courts or through judicial review.
The Bill has been under consideration for over a year by the civil, legal and military authorities. The Chief of the Defence Staff has recognised unequivocally the need to go ahead with this legislation. If we do not, when the convention comes into force in October 2000 British Armed Forces could be faced with individuals saying that the discipline system is in breach of the convention or is not compliant with it. At that point, the disciplinary system would certainly lose credibility, as would commanding officers.
370
I noted the moving quotation from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. But I am bound to say to him that time moves on. A quotation from a time when civil rights were very different from what they are today needs to be placed in context. I remind the Committee that it comes from a time when noble and gallant Lords might have come into this House through rights of succession, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I would certainly not have had a right to sit in this House.
The rights of our servicemen and women must keep pace with the rights that the people of this country expect for themselves. We must respect the rights of those in our armed services. In a modern world they have the same right to justice as the rest of us. To exclude them, uniquely, would be not to respect to them.
It is also possible that young people. when considering whether to be recruited into the Armed Forces, would be very concerned to think that they did not have the same rights under the European convention as their friends entering other walks of life.
Lord Bramall: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way and apologise for interrupting. She has made great play of doing this in conjunction with the services. It is a reasonable point for her to make. But is she saying that the Armed Forces welcome the Bill? If they do not welcome it—and I know they do not—what are they concerned about, if not that the discipline and authority of commanding officers will in some way be affected, even though it is necessarily because of the European convention?
She makes the point about human rights. I gave that boring little history lesson because I wanted to point out that in the services we had a good deal more concern for our fighting men and soldiers than was often found in civilian life. We were as conscious as anyone of the importance of the individual's self-respect. It is not right to suggest that somehow we are being dragged into the 20th century on man management because it would not be true.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble and gallant Lord asked me whether the chiefs of staff of all three services welcomed the legislation. I disagree with him. My discussions with Sir Charles Guthrie, as the Chief of the Defence Staff, and I understand the discussions that he had with the chiefs of staff of all the services, show that they want the legislation. They think that not having it would render the current disciplinary system untenable. The noble and gallant Lord cannot say, "Oh but if we had not signed up to the Human Rights Act last year they would not say that". We are where we are. That is now law. The circumstances are as they are, that legislation has been enacted. The chiefs of staff recognise that the legislation is important. They welcome it because it is necessary.
I am sorry to be so emphatic with the noble and gallant Lord on this. I did not find what he called his "history lesson" in any way boring, I thought it was extremely interesting and moving. It spoke of all that

371
is and has been good in our Armed Forces and the enormous care that officers in our Armed Forces have had historically and I know continue to have to this day for those in their charge.
But we are dealing now with the end of the 20th century and the human and legal rights that individuals can expect as citizens of this country. Uniquely to exclude our Armed Forces from those rights is not tenable.
The chiefs of staff are equally clear that abandoning the summary justice system would be untenable. The Bill does not do that. One would almost think, from the remarks of some of our noble and gallant friends in the House, that the rights to go to summary justice were being excluded. We all know that that is not the case. All that is being done is to give service men and women the option to go to a compliant court.
The proposals of the Bill are necessary to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. I say unequivocally that that is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the Armed Forces and the chiefs of staff. It is also the opinion of the Ministry of Defence and of leading counsel.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The noble Baroness said—I accept her word—that the Chief of the Defence Staff wanted this legislation. First, is it a question of his desiring this legislation, or does he simply accept the inevitable by virtue of his position? Secondly, in my widespread contacts with servicemen at all levels, particularly non-commissioned ranks, and as president of a branch of the Royal British Legion which makes its facilities available to service personnel, I have never been told in response to any of my questions, "Yes, we would like to have this legislation". I do not doubt the word of the noble Baroness, but my impression is different from hers.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am not surprised that the impression of all your Lordships is different from mine. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lords in voicing their fears about the authority of commanding officers believe everything that they have said. But that is not a view which is shared by the chiefs of staff. They are absolutely clear that to fail to implement this legislation will render the disciplinary system untenable and that, obviously, we must maintain the authority of commanding officers. The noble Lord raises very much the same question as that spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I have been very careful in my approach to this matter. It is always difficult to try to put words into the mouths of others. I deliberately spoke to General Sir Charles Guthrie and asked him what I might tell noble Lords about his views on this legislation. I shall quote exactly what Sir Charles has agreed that I may say in this Chamber. The services at all levels wish to introduce compliant disciplinary procedures as soon as possible. Ideally, they would like
372
revised procedures introduced during the current legislative Session. He emphasises that this is the firm recommendation of the chiefs of staff.
That is what the chiefs of staff have said. They are the ones in the field with current responsibility for Her Majesty's Armed Forces. I am bound to tell your Lordships that there have been disagreements in this Chamber in the past about whether the chiefs of staff really have given certain advice. My mind goes back to debates in this Chamber about Kosovo when it was said that some of the advice that we had received was not tenable. It turned out that it was. I believe that the advice that we have received is trustworthy and merits as much consideration by noble Lords this afternoon as anything else that we have debated on the subject of commanding officers.
Lord Carver: The noble Baroness puts forward a passionate justification for Clause 11 of the Bill. I believe that there is a great deal of exaggeration in the response of the noble Baroness. All we arguing about here is whether a serviceman or woman must choose trial by court martial or his or her commanding officer before any proceedings start or after the individual has been found guilty of the offence charged. I believe it is much fairer that the commanding officer should have the opportunity to find the soldier, sailor or airman not guilty at an early stage or be able to award a punishment—he knows the man or woman—that takes account of both the individual and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. Under the present system, the commanding officer having found the serviceman or woman guilty of the offence on the evidence produced, he then offers him or her the choice of accepting the commanding officer's award or of having a court martial where the matter will be heard again. I believe that that is better for service discipline. It is also fairer than the individual being faced at the beginning with the decision as to whether or not he or she will choose a court martial.
I strongly urge the Minister to think again on the issue. I am sorry to say that the Minister used somewhat extravagant language: that the CO's judgment would be open to constant challenge by the courts. I do not believe that it would. The existing Army and Royal Air Force legislation is perfectly fair. The man has his choice when he knows the decision of the commanding officer. To force the individual to make up his mind prior to that is less fair and less just.
I hope that the Minister will think again on the issue. There is talk that the chiefs think that the provision is marvellous; I know that they do not. They seek to make the best of a bad job. I suggest that the Government discuss this specific issue with the lawyers. If necessary, it can be tested in the court. I would rather that it did not have to be. However, with the leave of the House, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 11 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Limit on powers of courts-martial where accused elected court-martial trial]:
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 34, line 12, leave out ("shall not award any") and insert ("may award a").
The noble Lord said: In the fairly lengthy debate on Clause 11, the Minister spoke with conviction and passion. I speak to amendments on Clause 12, although that is not a clause which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, wishes to have withdrawn from the Bill.
I believe that I speak for all Members of the Committee when I say that we have no wish to pass any provision into legislation which may run contrary to the terms of the 1998 Act. We could not do so if we wanted to. The noble and gallant Lord spoke gloomily of trying the issue in the courts. We would not wish to make any provision which is not in the convention or the Human Rights Act and which may be considered to be derogatory to discipline.
Amendment No. 86 is curious in that it does not recommend something contrary to the convention. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden raised the point at Second Reading. He suggested that a court martial should have the power to award more severe punishment than that available under summary procedure. His argument was that a superior court can normally award a more severe sentence than a lower court. He cited the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
We have been given advice that the powers of the rehearing forum should not be greater than those of the original forum from which the appeal was brought. The amendment does not deal with a rehearing, but with circumstances in which a soldier elects a courts martial or a civilian elects a Crown Court trial. Subject to what my noble friend Lord Kingsland may say, I believe that additional punishment can be awarded.
I hope that, as the proposal does not run contrary to the convention, the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I understand the reasons for the noble Lord's amendment. It is tempting to draw parallels with the arrangements in the civilian criminal justice system. In the civilian courts, the accused, in choosing between trial by magistrates or trial in the Crown Court, faces the possibility of a heavier sentence in the higher court.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, drew our attention to that point at Second Reading. However, the choice facing an accused in the civilian system is also indisputably between two forms of trial which are both compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
On the other hand, in the services it may not be so easy to argue that summary dealings on their own are compatible with the convention. They can be made
374
sound, in convention terms, by offering the alternative of trial by a compliant court and the right of appeal. However, the choice needs to be genuine, and this is not the case if an accused is compelled to put himself in jeopardy of a greater punishment in order to secure his right to a compliant court. Therefore, because he must face the possibility of a greater sentence in the compliant court, there may be less likelihood that he will make that choice. As he is in jeopardy of a higher sentence he is not being offered a genuine choice.
To retain the powers for the courts martial to award a more severe sentence—or, indeed, to allow the new summary appeal court to do so—would, therefore, not achieve the effect of bringing summary dealings within the scope of the convention. However, election for courts martial trial is not without risk from the accused's point of view. Although the court martial will be limited to the maximum sentencing powers available to the commanding officer, the accused will need to consider whether within these powers he is likely to receive a heavier sentence from the court or from the commanding officer. If he elects trial by courts martial, he will also face the risk that the prosecuting authority will consider that he should face a different charge. In this case, the accused may not be offered the option of election on the new charge, in which case there would be no limitation on the sentencing powers of the courts martial.
I hope that your Lordships appreciate that our main purpose is to ensure that the procedures for summary dealing are within the scope of the convention—that is what the legislation tries to ensure—which is of the utmost importance. The amendment would defeat that objective and I must ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.
4 p.m.
Lord Burnham: Of course I accept what the Minister says with regard to another charge. However, listening to everything else that she has to say, I fear that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, is right and that those matters may well have to be tested in the courts. At Second Reading I quoted a noble and gallant Lord who said to me in private, "We know what we are talking about". I have a deep fear, in particular having just listened to the Minister, that that may not always be the case with her advisers. I fear that when we come to a later stage of the Bill, we shall have to be far more robust in our opposition to certain aspects of it than we have been today, when the Christmas spirit is all around your Lordships. Therefore, I give clear notice that we shall on a future occasion oppose this and other amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 12. insert the following new clause—
CONDUCT AT COURT-MARTIAL
(" . —(1) After section 102 of each of the 1955 Acts there is inserted—
Conduct at court-martial.
102A. Unless the prosecuting authority has previously applied for and obtained leave from the court a person charged before a court-martial shall appear in uniform with belt and headgear and without escort."
(2) After section 66A of the 1957 Act there is inserted—
"Conduct at court-martial.
66B. Unless the prosecuting authority has previously applied for and obtained leave from the court a person charged before a court-martial shall appear in uniform with headgear and without escort." ").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is designed to probe the Minister's view on the courts martial procedure. Noble Lords will recall the concerns that I raised during Second Reading regarding the procedure whereby the accused is marched into the courts martial room. In short, he is marched in without belt or headgear and under escort. I must say that, as a member of courts martials, I found that unnecessary and distasteful. It added nothing to the process. As I said at Second Reading, I feel that the summary jurisdiction is far more about the maintenance of discipline and morale; in short, the military ethos. On the other hand, the courts martial system needs to be as well-developed a system of justice as we can make it.
I hope that the Committee sees me as one who believes in the need for robust disciplinary machinery and as a great traditionalist. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to disadvantage the accused by subjecting him to a somewhat degrading procedure. I also do not believe that it appears appropriate to the public and to the media. It is a hangover from a previous age.
In a civilian court, it is well known that the accused will often be advised to pay attention to his appearance; in other words, to improve it. A wise person accused will want to be deferential to the court, but he will want also to create a favourable impression. In the courts martial system, the accused is treated in a way which tends to suggest that he is already guilty, although he will of course be given a fair chance to defend himself.
I do not profess to be an expert on ceremonial or military etiquette, but I believe that the accused should be given the opportunity to pay compliment to the court in the same way as the accused in a civilian court may alter his appearance in recognition of the importance and the status of the court. I make one possible suggestion for a new procedure: the accused should march himself in unescorted and salute the president of the courts martial. The president may then order all headgear to be removed in the usual manner. I accept that if there is a possibility of the accused becoming uncontrollable then appropriate precautions would need to be taken. If the accused is acquitted at the end of the courts martial, he may replace his headgear, salute the president and march out. If he is found guilty and sentenced, he will of
376
course not need his headgear. The procedure might need to be modified to take into consideration whether a custodial sentence was imposed.
I accept that the best way forward is for the defence counsel to make those detailed changes. That is not something that should be placed on the face of the Bill. Indeed, it is only the flexibility of the Committee that allows us to debate the issue this afternoon. However, I believe this to be an important matter and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The amendment seems to me to make a very humane suggestion. As a probing amendment, it brings the conduct of military discipline up to what one would describe as "modern standards". The procedure as described by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, appears to be a remnant of an 18th or 19th century army, and I trust that the Minister will respond on that point.
Lord Glenarthur: I have some sympathy with my noble friend's remarks. However, has he considered the case of a soldier who was under close arrest beforehand and who would have appeared either before his commanding officer or elsewhere similarly deprived of his belt and headgear? If that soldier appears before a courts martial or a commanding officer, does my noble friend agree that that situation might complicate matters? I am all for some degree of humanity in this matter. On the other hand, I believe that under the military ethos there is much to be said for the rather stark measures which might appear to be necessary, particularly under active service conditions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Earl raised those issues at Second Reading. I appreciate his motives for bringing them forward again now. Like the noble Earl, I am not convinced that those matters are appropriate for primary legislation. I believe that the noble Earl made clear that that was also his view and that he was using the amendment as a means of elucidating our views.
At present, those issues are covered by regulations. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl that it is no longer the case that belt and headgear are removed from the accused. The accused removes his headgear at the same time as everyone else is required to do so. However, we must ensure that the regulations and the revised practice all work in accord with each other. I undertake to look into that point for the noble Earl. However, it is the case that those practices have now been reformed.
On the other point which was raised, I do not believe that I can agree with the provision which discontinues the use of the escort officers without the prior approval of the court. It may well be that someone is accused of a violent crime and may unexpectedly pose a threat to the safety of the court. I suggest to the noble Earl that we would be much wiser to ensure that the option of using an escort officer is left to the discretion of the services.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Clearly, I must have another look at my

377
manual on military law and study it in greater detail. I am pleased that we have made some progress on these matters. For the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 89:
After Clause 12, irsert the following new clause—
CONVENTION RIGHTS QUESTIONS
(" . A Courts-Martial Appeal Court to determine questions solely relating to Convention Rights designated by rules made in accordance with section 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall be established.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment inserts a new clause that a courts martial appeal court be set up to determine questions relating solely to convention rights. The amendment provides for a judicial domestic appellate forum in which questions concerning convention rights under the service discipline Act may be determined. The proposal was not originally mine. Indeed, it was a proposal made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Third Reading of the Human Rights Bill. The proposal was made on the clear assumption that the existing regime, with this amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, would comply with the convention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, has been very patient. I have every sympathy and understanding for her position. She comes to this Committee and says, "Well, the chiefs of staff tell me, and I know, that they like the Bill; it is a jolly good Bill; there is nothing wrong with it; so there it is". But the noble Baroness must have some sympathy for our position.
I served in the most humble capacity in the Armed Forces. But when you have noble and gallant Lord after noble and gallant Lord coming along and saying quite the opposite of what the noble Baroness is being told by the present chiefs of staff, what is the Committee to do?
It is not a question of pressing the noble Baroness or seeking to be unkind, but she must understand that somehow or other we must sort this out. My noble friend Lord Burnham put it in one when he said, "Well, Christmas is coming", and one thing or another, but in the meantime, could we relax a bit, understand each other's position and look into this matter?
The noble Baroness is saying, "The Lord Chancellor's Department and the MoD take the view that…". With the greatest respect, I understand that the noble Baroness has to say that, but she must understand that I do not like it. Time and time again I have been asking which articles of the convention are being broken by the existing regime. That is a fair enough question when one sees that it was not my proposal; it was a proposal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
I propose this amendment on the basis that it would satisfy the convention. I shall not go on about it, but I hope that the Committee will understand that it is a rather odd situation, if I can express the matter in that way.
What the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said is at col. 767. When he was rejecting my amendment—and as a rule, my amendments always are rejected—he said:
"In practice, convention issues as they might affect the Armed Forces would arise in the course of proceedings before military courts and would be resolved there. Appeals would go to the Courts Martial Appeal Court".—[Official Report, 5/2/98: cols. 767 and 768.]
And so on. That view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seemed perfectly reasonable.
In the wake of that proposal, I indulged in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, at the MoD of which I have no copies save one, which is a comfort letter of 10th March 1998. It would be much appreciated if the noble Baroness would place copies of the correspondence—because I have lost mine save for this letter—in the Library before Report stage. The reference is dppsMB39/ltrs/an-ldcampb/Kat". I do not understand it but that is the reference. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to that on Second Reading at col. 687.
Yesterday, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, showed me a letter to him from the MoD dated 9th June which informed him that it was not proposed to adopt the proposal of the Lord Chancellor, as confirmed by the comfort letter. Perhaps a copy of that letter could complete the bundle.
The comfort letter dated 10th March states:
"Dear Lord Campbell,
Thank you for your letter … As I said in my letter of 28th February"
— this has been going on for quite some time—
"we are looking into the proposal for a designated military court to determine questions solely relating to Convention rights, but until we have received advice from officials, neither Ministers nor Chiefs of Staff can take a view on this.
"Such a court would, as you mention, be designated by rules in accordance with Clause 7 of the Human Rights Bill. The rule will be agreed in the period between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and its coming into force. I do not think you need to worry, therefore, about the option being foreclosed if we do not take an immediate view on this [the Lord Chancellor's] proposal. We have enough time to reach a fully considered decision".
Accepting the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, I was wholly content and did not worry until I saw a copy of the Bill which takes a totally different approach and affords no comfort at all, other than, according to the noble Baroness, to the present chiefs of staff. It appears that it does not afford universal comfort to many other people.
When one looks at the Bill and sees what the boys in the backroom have done and the intricacy of the craftsmanship, one wonders why such an exercise should have been undertaken at all when the option proposed by the Lord Chancellor, confirmed by the MoD, was wholly acceptable, wholly satisfactory and wholly in accord with the convention.
To save the time of your Lordships, I will forebear from commenting upon the reasons given in the letter dated 9th June. Frankly, when your Lordships come to consider them on Report, I believe they will find them totally incomprehensible and not satisfactory reasons. However, I would be grateful if that letter, together with the others, could be made available so that in the course of debate it may be fully discussed.
At this stage I wish only to urge the Committee, and in particular the Government, to reconsider the rather harsh attitude to the general amendments to the Bill. I suggest that the amendment, which commended itself to government, would not require any amendment to the service discipline Acts as proposed by the Bill. It would be in compliance with the convention and assure compliance with the convention. I propose to withdraw the amendment in due course. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley: Mention has been made of a letter addressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. I am happy for that letter to be made available.
It was not clear to me at the time that he wrote whether the reason for not going forward on the lines that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor proposed—as outlined this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—was in any way dependent upon cost. When the Minister addresses this point, either now or at a later stage, I hope she will be able to tell us whether or not cost was in any way part of the reason for not proceeding with what originally appeared to the Lord Chancellor and myself—I advocated it strongly—a single court martial appeal court for all servicemen's human rights cases.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Amendment No. 89 re-visits an issue that first emerged in your Lordships' Chamber when we were considering the then Human Rights Bill. The noble Lord asked me to make sure that copies of various correspondence that he mentioned were placed in the Library of the House. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for giving his consent in relation to the correspondence directed to him. I shall do that as quickly as possible.
However, when the Human Rights Bill was under discussion my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook to look into the question of designating military courts to deal with convention points arising in the Armed Forces. As I indicated in my response to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, we gave that proposition careful thought, but in the end decided against it. We did not feel that there would be enough business to justify the establishment of a special court for this purpose. We therefore examined whether courts martial themselves would be appropriate.
Amendment No. 89 appears to be related solely to the function points arising from judicial acts. This is the import of the reference to Section 9 of the Human Rights Act. The other aspect of the drafting of the
380
amendment on which I could perhaps comment is the reference to a "courts martial appeal court" being established. That might cause some confusion with the existing court of that name.
The existing courts martial appeal court is competent to deal with convention points raised on appeal from the courts martial. The new summary appeal courts will be able to deal with such points raised on appeal from summary proceedings. That would cover most of the territory addressed in the noble Lord's amendment. As I said, other issues would be a matter for the High Court.
In his address to us, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—perhaps referring a little reflectively to the discussion we have had on the Bill this afternoon—asked what articles would be broken in the convention were we to do nothing. Perhaps I can point out that the Government believe that Article 5 would be broken, the article concerning the right to liberty, and Article 6, the article concerning the right to a fair trial. I realise that they are not specifically linked to the amendment, but as the noble Lord was good enough to put those points to me, it may be convenient to answer them now.
We are not ruthlessly brushing aside the amendments tabled to this Bill. I can assure the Committee that they commanded an enormous amount of attention in the Ministry of Defence and, with the greatest respect to all Members of the Committee, it is natural and proper that there is a particular relationship with the noble and gallant Lords who have been good enough to give us the benefit of their wisdom. Their amendments were carefully considered in framing my answers this afternoon.
Similarly, we have given very careful consideration to the concerns articulated in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, we believe that we have a satisfactory solution to the possible areas of difficulty to which he drew attention. Therefore, we do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her attention to this matter. I agree with her that the only possible articles that could be breached are 5 and 6. I have been studying them with care for some time, and have been unable to find any way in which, in substance, the existing regime breaches those articles. However, what I would really like to know—this is something that we come back to the whole time—is what precise authorities, what reasoning and which provisions of the existing regime are running against, or counter to, the Convention on Human Rights?
I do not ask that question merely to be wicked; I ask because I have been looking through these articles for quite some time and have been unable to find out how they, in the light of any decided case, have breached the convention. However, it is getting late. I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for having spoken and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, as always. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause
PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES: HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
(". No provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall prevent proceedings being taken for offences against good order and military discipline.").
The noble Lord said: My amendment is very brief and suggests the insertion of a new clause stating that no provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall prevent proceedings from being taken for offences against good order and military discipline. This overlaps with a good deal of the discussion that has already taken place, but it provides an alternative to some of the suggestions that have been put forward.
The amendment would deal with that serious situation which could, and will, occasionally arise when a member, or members, of the Armed Forces—indeed, any of them—is clearly in breach of good order and military discipline because of his behaviour, which is justified by the Human Rights Act. One could elaborate on the situation and give a number of examples, but I shall give Members of the Committee only one example. Article 11 says that everyone has the right to freedom of association. One can imagine that various meetings of bodies on the streets by way of protest for or against some particular cause could very easily lead to a breach of good order and military discipline. Indeed, that is an obvious example.
Article 15, which has already been mentioned in another context today, is really too narrow to cover this point because it merely says:
"In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
Those are very serious and extreme circumstances. However, something could arise in peace-time and not necessarily in time of war or on an occasion threatening the life of the nation. It could arise when we have forces serving overseas within the Commonwealth to protect some interests there at the request of a Commonwealth government. Alternatively, under United Nations arrangements, it could arise where we have sent forces to try to keep the peace in some part of the world. It is not necessary for me to elaborate. I simply say that it also has the advantage of being a solution to the problem raised last year by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Third Reading of what was then the Human Rights Bill. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allow ay: I support this amendment. It opens up again this essential avenue as to the exclusion clauses. Between now and Report we must consider how Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 14 and Amencment No. 90 might be converted
382
into an exclusion clause. I support in principle the spirit of the amendment and hope that between now and Report some exclusion clause can be drafted.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for introducing this amendment. As usual, he makes a good point. Can the Minister say whether there are any civilian equivalents to Section 69? Does she believe that Section 69 is necessary and, if so, how does she justify such a catch-all provision?
Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that road traffic accidents are dealt with under Section 69? I accept that an offence of careless driving can be dealt with under Section 70 of the Army Act, which incorporates civilian law into military law. However, Section 69 is used for other accidents with military vehicles. Indeed, the manual of military law shows several specimen charges under Section 69, and having an accident with a military vehicle is only one of them. With the implementation of this Bill will it not be necessary to introduce several new specific offences in order to be able to avoid having to use the catch-all offence of Section 69?
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Renton said when he moved his amendment. However, I am bound to say that I was not quite clear from what he said whether he was trying to preserve what my noble friend on the Front Bench has called the catch-all element for the purposes of military law, or whether he was stating that he considered that the Human Rights Act might go against that. It seems to me from my military experience that it is almost essential to have some kind of catch-all because, if you do not, you end up in a muddle when operating in a whole set of circumstances which are different from the ways we operate in the civilian world. I refer to the particular aspects of operating under service life and operational conditions.
I hope that it is possible for what I believe is Section 69 of the Army Act to be maintained, and that acceptance of the Act as it now stands does not indicate either that the Human Rights Act is being violated or that military law could be diminished by the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. That catch-all Section 69 seems to me all-important and extremely difficult to quantify because of the number of different instances which might apply at any one time.
Lord Renton: I hope that I may answer my noble friend before the Minister replies. The measure leaves the catch-all provision unimpaired but it resolves a potential conflict between all military, naval and air force law and the Human Rights Act. Some means of reconciling this matter has to be found, as indeed the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned at Third Reading of what was then the Human Rights Bill.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

383
He has in former times given a great deal of study to all these intricate matters. For that reason we should take seriously both his amendment and the way that he introduced it. I also agree with him that between now and Third Reading, wherever we sit in your Lordships' House, we should all give a great deal of concentrated thinking to these matters.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I recognise the noble Lord's concern that the Bill should do nothing to undermine discipline. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made his views very clear in an admirably succinct manner at Second Reading.
I hope that I was able to make it equally clear on that occasion that the Government do not believe that the Bill and the interests of discipline are in any way in conflict with each other. On the contrary, we consider that the Bill is essential to the maintenance of those aspects of the disciplinary procedure that we are all agreed are so important. I hope and believe that this is common ground among all of us in your Lordships' House.
I can find nothing in the Human Rights Act or in the Bill that would have the effect that the noble Lord, quite properly, seeks to avoid. The existing range of offences will remain on the statute book, as will the powers to charge for those offences. The Bill is concerned with the procedures for dealing with offences in order to ensure that they are compatible with the convention. In the Government's view, it is essential that the procedures should ensure that proceedings are handled fairly and properly in all circumstances. The Government believe that that is what the Bill is about. However, I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing in either the Act or the Bill to prevent proceedings against good order and discipline. It would clearly be of great concern to the services and to the Ministry of Defence if that were to be the case.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked me about civilian equivalents to Section 69. We are not aware of any civilian equivalents. Perhaps that is not surprising. The section deals with conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and the services use it for inappropriate behaviour, such as motoring offences on military land. Obviously, because it is military land and not a public highway, the Road Traffic Act does not apply. Section 69, therefore, is the means used to ensure that servicemen and servicewomen behave properly in that respect.
To return to the main points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I hope that the assurances I have given him in relation to the Act and to the Bill are of some comfort to him. I wonder whether, on that basis, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Renton: Naturally, I am very much relieved by the assurance given by the noble Baroness. I hope that she will not feel that I am being in any way offensive if I say that I only hope that she is right. I shall wish to consider that between now and the Report stage. Meanwhile, while thanking her and other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Summary appeal courts]:
On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carver: I have spoken already to Clauses 14 to 25, which will be necessary only if Clause 11 remains part of the Bill. Let me emphasise again that the issue of summary appeal courts would arise only if Clause 11 of the Bill was passed. I suggest that, as far as concerns the Army and the Air Force, life would be much simpler for everyone—and justice achieved much more quickly—if Clause 11 were not implemented, in which case Clauses 14 to 25 would not be necessary. They are necessary only because, under Clause 11, a soldier or airman will need to choose between summary trial or courts martial before he has ever faced summary trial at all.
However, I shall not go over those arguments again. I hope that, when the Bill returns to the House, some changes will have been made, if not the total abolition of Clause 11. With the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my opposition to Clauses 14 to 25 standing part of the Bill.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Officers qualified for membership of summary appeal court]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 38, line 23. leave out ("83ZJ") and insert ("52FP").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment designed solely to correct a drafting error. The error arose when a section number from the Army Act 1955 and Air Force Act 1955 was incorrectly referred to in relation to the Naval Discipline Act 1957. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Right of appeal]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 40, line 6, leave out ("twenty-one) and insert ("seven").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 92 and at the same time I shall speak to Amendment No. 93. At Second Reading I explained at length the need to maintain morale and discipline during operations, although of course morale and discipline must also be maintained at home. Such difficulties will be magnified if, after being sentenced,

385
a serviceman could spend the next three weeks telling the whole world that the punishment did not matter as he would in any case be appealing it. Conversely, others might spend the three weeks worrying about whether they should appeal, even if there appeared to be no point in doing so. No doubt the barrack room lawyers would play their full part in advising the soldier.
I also explained that in the face of such potential difficulties, the CO may be tempted to take the simple and expedient route of opting for courts martial and sending the soldier back to the UK. Unfortunately, if the soldier is found guilty by this route, his career could be completely destroyed rather than just put back a few months. The Minister rightly claims that the provisions in the Bill stem from counsel's advice as to how to comply with the ECHR. However, I am not convinced that we need such a long period as 21 days in which to bring an appeal. Seven days appears to be much more reasonable and a period with which the CO could live.
A further difficulty was touched upon by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He told the Committee of a situation he faced while on operations, when dealing with a spate of negligent discharges of personal weapons. What would happen to the vital principle of the need to apply discipline consistently if, in the case outlined by the noble and gallant Lord, two soldiers had to be disciplined for the same offence? What would happen if one soldier decided to appeal and the other did not? How would these two soldiers be dealt with consistently? I beg to move.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am entirely clear why these amendments have been tabled. The concerns that they reflect were eloquently expressed during the Second Reading debate. It was said that summary discipline would be undermined if the impact of immediate punishment was lost. I should emphasise that, under the proposals in the Bill, sentences will take immediate effect except, of course, for custodial sentences. I acknowledge that these were the area of concern to noble Lords. However, if the purpose of the amendments is to reinstate, as far as possible, the effect of the short, sharp shock, they do not achieve that end. We accept that any period of suspension, be it seven or 21 days, will take away the immediate effect. We chose a period of 21 days quite deliberately as the time limit for summary appeals to the Crown Court. It seemed logical to remain in line with the civilian courts as far as possible. This period also allows sufficient time for an accused to prepare properly. He would need to prepare an application for legal aid and await a decision on that. He would also need to arrange an appointment and get advice from a legal representative. If a shorter period is imposed, it is inevitable that there will be a greater number of applicants seeking leave to appeal out of time or people will appeal automatically to ensure that they are within time, with the risk that they will later withdraw the appeal. In addition, we believe that any period under 10 days runs the risk of being unreasonable, given the wide variety of circumstances
386
and locations in which our personnel may find themselves, and may well be incompatible with the convention.
However, I appreciate that the intentions of the noble Earl in moving the amendment are entirely benign and worthy. If your Lordships agree, I am prepared to consider the time limit question further.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful for and pleasantly surprised by that response. I should like to touch on another problem. The accused will normally know if he has been unfairly dealt with and so ought to be able quite quickly to make a decision about appealing. But on operations he might not be able effectively to obtain impartial legal advice. However, under subsections (2) and (3) of new Section 83ZE, appeals can be brought outside the 21 days. Can the Minister say whether being on operations without access to non-MoD legal advice would be good reason to bring a late appeal? If she agrees that that should be the case, will the rules of procedure of the summary appeal court reflect that?
I appreciate that the Minister has not had much time to think on the matter and that she may prefer to write to me. But it would be useful to have that reassurance.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The fair answer to the noble Earl is probably not a very helpful one. It might be a good reason. The noble Earl said that the accused will know whether or not he or she has been fairly dealt with. But that may not be the only consideration in an individual's mind about what to do next. An individual may want to take into account all kinds of other considerations, including, of course, getting the whole issue over and dealt with as quickly as possible. All of us are agreed that that will be very much in people's minds.
The noble Earl asked specifically about individuals on operations who may not be able to have access to legal advice. It may be that on some occasions that would be a good reason. We could adduce all kinds of hypothetical cases which we might think were reasonable. I shall give some thought to whether I can give the noble Earl any further help on the question in general and see whether we cannot manage to have rather more of a meeting of minds on this issue.
Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her replies to both my points. We look forward to hearing what the Minister's suggests. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 25 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Amendments of 1955 Acts and 1957 Act relating to summary appeal courts]:
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 53, line 49, leave out from ("making") to end of line 50 and insert ("elections under section 118ZA(2) of this Act and withdrawing such elections;".").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 95. These two minor amendments clarify the wording of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 3. The intention is for subsection (2) of Section 118ZA or Section 85A to be read as qualifying the election, not as identifying the provision under which election is withdrawn.
As currently drafted, the paragraphs could be interpreted as implying that the subsection of the service discipline Acts to which the provision refers provide for matters relating to both the making and the withdrawal of an individual's election to commence his sentence of detention immediately. I hope that the amendments will clarify the real intention of that particular part of the schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 54, line 3, leave out from ("making") to end of line 4 and insert ("elections under section 85A(2) of this Act and withdrawing such elections;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Christmas Adjournment
4.53 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words of thanks and express my gratitude to all Members of the House and others who work here. I am sure that the whole House will share my delight in the fact that we are managing to adjourn for Christmas in such good time. Our thoughts and commiserations are with our colleagues in another place as they sit into Christmas week while we are able to get on with our Christmas shopping. The way that Christmas falls this year allows us to have a full three weeks off and I hope that everyone will enjoy it very much.
388
In particular, I extend my good wishes for the festive season to the staff who look after us so well. As ever, their dedication, loyalty and professionalism has been second to none. I thank them on behalf of the whole House for their help and support over the past year. I wish them all a well-deserved rest and a very merry Christmas.
I should like to say a personal word of thanks to the Opposition Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the friendly and co-operative way in which they have, as always, helped the usual channels to flow. Sometimes the usual channels look as though they are heading for a dam and then somehow another channel is found and business proceeds.
I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the former Convenor of the Cross Benches, for his help and co-operation during my time as Chief Whip, and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, to his new post as Convenor.
It is not every year that we adjourn in the knowledge that we shall not reconvene until the next millennium. This year has been one of great change in this House. It seems fitting that it should end not only with the arrival of a new century but at the beginning of the third millennium. The House now goes forward as a new and different House, but one in which I hope friendship and civility are at a premium. I am sure that this House, steeped as it is in history and tradition, will embrace the challenges of the new century with all its customary zeal and enthusiasm.
It only remains for me, on behalf of the Government, to wish all of your Lordships a very happy Christmas and an exciting, challenging and fulfilling New Year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I offer my support to the Government Chief Whip's Motion that the House do now adjourn. I tender my apologies in advance for the fact that I shall not be here when the House resumes at 7.15 this evening. I doubt that any members of my Front Bench will be here to offer their support. No doubt the Government will get their business through and the Government Chief Whip will be able to persuade some of his colleagues to stay on until 7.15 to see the Consolidated Fund Bill proceed through this House.
We echo the noble Lord's words in offering our thanks to all those in this House who have done so much to keep us going over long hours in what has been a fairly extraordinary year, certainly in terms of the changes to this House. They have put in an enormous amount of hard work to make it possible for us to conduct our business. I understand that our

389
hours of sitting are now the second longest of any legislative body in the world. I believe that we now sit longer than even another place on at least a third of our sitting days. But in offering our thanks to the staff we should warn them that, given the size of the Government's legislative programme, they will probably be working even longer hours in the coming year.
This has been a busy year, which has seen some fairly fundamental changes to the composition of this House. There have been some very difficult moments. I offer my thanks and congratulations to the Government Chief Whip who has done his best to calm things down and run a stable ship in fairly difficult times. We shall return in a new millennium after a happy three-week break over Christmas and new year to what I believe the Leader of the House described as a more legitimate House. We therefore look forward to a very exciting year in which we shall exercise those greatly legitimised powers. I can assure the Government Chief Whip that he will require all his charm and powers of persuasion in negotiating with us as he attempts to push through a fairly enormous government programme.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, on behalf of my Chief Whip, we on these Benches echo the sentiments of the Government Chief Whip and the Opposition Chief Whip. In some ways this has been an exciting but difficult year. Perhaps I may pay two personal tributes. First, I believe that in every way the Government Chief Whip has behaved with extreme courtesy and sensitivity throughout the difficult changes to the composition of the House. Secondly, without wanting to appear patronising, I believe that in the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, we have the emergence of a leader of the Conservative Benches of real quality.
Having said that and acknowledged the service given by all those who help us in our work in this House, it has been a difficult time. I give the example of the Doorkeepers and bar staff. Over a number of years they have formed close relationships with Members of this House, many of whom have left and many of whom remain, sometimes over more than one generation. This has been a difficult time for them. Perhaps sometimes we do not appreciate how changes have affected them.
As always, each year I select with great pleasure two groups of people who need to be recognised. First, I think of Hansard whose staff, sometimes for long hours and often in difficult circumstances, report the proceedings of this House. From my own point of view, often what is reported is better than I believed it to be at the time. I congratulate them on that. I also congratulate the staff of the Library. We continue to
390
be served extremely well by the Library of this House, particularly the research department which I understand is now well used by the hereditary Peers who remain. I believe that that is a heartening sign for next year.
In conclusion, as it is the season of resolutions, and I am quite good at them, perhaps I may share a resolution. Next year when using and scanning the newspapers—as I do like other noble Lords—which are supplied for us by the taxpayer, and which are carefully and well arranged by the Library staff, I resolve that on every occasion I shall seek to return those papers in a clean and folded fashion, and not leave them around the floor in pieces.
On that rather schoolmasterly note, it remains only for me to wish everyone in the House a very happy Christmas and a good new year.
5 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for his kind personal remarks. On behalf of the Cross-Benchers I should like to add our message of thanks and seasonal greetings to all those in the Palace who work before and behind the scenes to keep everything running for this House as smoothly and efficiently as they do. As always, it is invidious to single out individuals by name because so much is done in a spirit of teamwork and we all owe so much to everyone involved. However, perhaps on this occasion I hope that noble Lords will not think me out of order in mentioning our previous Redcoat by name.
Mr Kendrick, a former member of the Royal Marines, stood his ground at the Peers' Entrance in fair weather and foul for almost 20 years, ever cheerful and helpful to all noble Lords and their visitors. He cut a fine figure and I know was much admired. He has a fine successor in Mr Evans.
Perhaps I may also express our Cross-Bench thanks to Jill Baronti, who is leaving the Whips Office. For a long time she has been sending out the weekly Cross-Bench notices. We do not call them Whips. We wish both Mr Kendrick and Ms Baronti well.
I add my own good wishes and greetings for the festive season. I hope that all noble Lords return in good heart in the year 2000, and that no millennium bug nor horrible beastie has dared to spoil the Recess for any noble Lord.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for all the kind words spoken. As noble Lords know, we now have to await the arrival of the Consolidated Fund Bill. The procedures in another place are not as flexible as ours. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 7.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.3 to 7.15 p.m.]

Consolidated Fund Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution this day), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for 10 minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.18 to 7.28 p.m.]

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty-nine minutes past seven o'clock until Monday 10th January next.

  Consolidated Fund Bill: Human Rights Statement
  Consolidated Fund Bill: Human Rights Statement
  UK Productivity
  UK Productivity
  European-wide Withholding Tax
  European-wide Withholding Tax
  Legally Aided Criminal Cases: Green Form Assistance
  Legally Aided Criminal Cases: Green Form Assistance
  Public Law Work: New Legal Aid Contracts
  Public Law Work: New Legal Aid Contracts
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Angola
  Angola
  Chinese Embassy Bombing in Belgrade
  Chinese Embassy Bombing in Belgrade
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  British Prisoners Abroad
  British Prisoners Abroad
  Orissa
  Orissa
  Interception of Communications Consultation Paper
  Interception of Communications Consultation Paper
  Coastal By-laws
  Coastal By-laws
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Criminal Records Bureau
  Young People Remanded to Local Authority Secure Accommodation
  Young People Remanded to Local Authority Secure Accommodation
  Social Inclusion Action Plan
  Social Inclusion Action Plan
  Television Licence Concessions Review
  Television Licence Concessions Review
  Include Me In Report
  Include Me In Report
  Museums and Galleries: Funding and. Entry Charges
  Museums and Galleries: Funding and. Entry Charges
  Regional Theatres
  Regional Theatres
  Bosnia: UK Troop Levels
  Bosnia: UK Troop Levels
  Gulf Veterans: Number and Causes of Deaths
  Gulf Veterans: Number and Causes of Deaths
  Football Teaching to Girls in Schools
  Football Teaching to Girls in Schools
  Student Support
  Student Support
  Sexual Orientation: Anti-discrimination Policies
  Sexual Orientation: Anti-discrimination Policies
  Students: Meningococcal Vaccine
  Students: Meningococcal Vaccine
  Great Ormond Street Hospital: Cardiac Operations
  Great Ormond Street Hospital: Cardiac Operations
  NHS Charter Review
  NHS Charter Review
  Direct Payments to People Over 65
  Direct Payments to People Over 65
  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre
  Organophosphate Exposure: Treatment Recommendations
  Organophosphate Exposure: Treatment Recommendations
  DHS: Human Rights Act Audit
  DHS: Human Rights Act Audit
  People Disentitled to Benefit
  People Disentitled to Benefit
  Local Transport Infrastructure
  Local Transport Infrastructure
  Objective 2 Designation: Cumbria
  Objective 2 Designation: Cumbria
  Vodafone/Mannesmann Takover Bid
  Vodafone/Mannesmann Takover Bid
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Suspected Adverse Reactions
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Suspected Adverse Reactions
  Over Thirty Months Scheme for Cattle
  Over Thirty Months Scheme for Cattle
  Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group
  Meat Industry Red Tape Working Group
  Badger Culling Trial
  Badger Culling Trial
  Medicines (Exemptions for Merchants in Veterinary Drugs) Order
  Medicines (Exemptions for Merchants in Veterinary Drugs) Order
  GMOs
  GMOs
  Beef on the Bone
  Beef on the Bone
  Secretary of State for Scotland: Residence
  Secretary of State for Scotland: Residence
  Peers: Provision of Official Papers
  Peers: Provision of Official Papers
  House of Lords Staff Working on 31 December/1 January
  House of Lords Staff Working on 31 December/1 January